Case 2408964/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Kendrick v Shankly Hotel Liverpool Ops Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2408964/2020
- Decision date
- 26 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Kendrick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Horne made three awards in favour of Miss L Kendrick against Shankly Hotel Liverpool Ops Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £104.67 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £738.90. In addition, it found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract by failing to give sufficient notice of termination, and ordered damages of £328.40 gross.
The judgment states that all sums were awarded gross without deduction for tax or national insurance. It also notes that the claimant may be liable to pay tax and national insurance on the sums awarded for the wage deduction and breach of contract claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £104.67 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £105 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant entitled to a redundancy payment of £738.90. | Upheld | — | £739 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to give sufficient notice of termination and ordered damages of £328.40. | Upheld | — | £328 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,172
- across all upheld claims
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.