Case 2412178/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T A Mim v Pretty Steps Day Nursery Ltd t/a Banana Moon Hyde — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412178/2023
- Decision date
- 10 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T A Mim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge decided the case under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the tribunal determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided without a response from the respondent.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The award covered three weeks' unpaid wages in September 2023, calculated at £5.28 per hour for 40 hours per week, amounting to £211.20 per week and £633.60 in total.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £633.60. It also recorded that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising from the gross award if tax was not deducted at source. The separate interest notice stated the relevant decision day as 10 May 2024 and noted the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum, but no separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding 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. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for three weeks' unpaid wages in September 2023, calculated at £5.28 per hour x 40 hours = £211.20 per week, for a gross total of £633.60. | Upheld | — | £634 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £634
- 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.