Case 2411449/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Huet v Ants Property Sourcing Widnes Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411449/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Huet
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge dealt with the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the tribunal made a determination on the material parts of the claim without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £199.78 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £711.55 gross.
The judgment does not identify any separate injury, basic award, or compensatory award. The accompanying notice explained that statutory interest could accrue if the sums remained unpaid 14 days after the relevant decision day, recorded as 16 May 2022, with the calculation day as 17 May 2022 and the stipulated rate at 8%.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £200 |
| Holiday pay | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £712 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £911
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.