Case 2409678/2023 · Employment Tribunal
M Matthews v Lathams Bakery — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409678/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 2 October 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Batten determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 without a contested hearing.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's wages claim, finding that Lathams Bakery had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordering payment of £345.10 gross. It also upheld the notice claim, finding that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarding damages of £135.46.
The tribunal further upheld the holiday pay claim, finding that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordering payment of £135.46 gross. The judgment also included the standard interest notice stating that sums awarded would carry interest if unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, but no separate interest figure was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £345.10 for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £345 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £135.46. | Upheld | — | £135 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £135.46 gross. | Upheld | — | £135 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £616
- 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.