Case 2408484/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Garlick v Alison Cartwright trading as Alison’s Alfresco — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408484/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Garlick
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge KM Ross determined that the respondent, Alison Cartwright trading as Alison's Alfresco, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,600 within 14 days of the judgment.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement of 112 hours on termination of employment, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,064 within 14 days. The claimant was made responsible for any tax liabilities arising on the gross awards.
The total gross sum ordered to be paid by the respondent to the claimant was £3,664. The judgment was sent to the parties on 27 February 2024, with statutory interest provisions under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 applying if the award remained unpaid after 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £2,600 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay 112 hours of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination; awarded under the Working Time Regulations framework referenced in the gov.uk listing. | Upheld | — | £1,064 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,664
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.