Case 2418371/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Dale v Blackrod Holdings Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418371/2020
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Dale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been filed. On that basis, it upheld Ms C Dale’s claims against Blackrod Holdings Limited for an unauthorised deduction from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, redundancy payment, and unpaid holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered payment of £525.44 for the wages deduction claim, £525.44 as damages for breach of contract, £1,050.88 as a redundancy payment, and £437.86 for holiday pay. The judgment recorded that the gross sums are subject to the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance, if any, while the redundancy payment was stated to be not subject to deductions.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages in the gross sum stated. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment stated to be not subject to deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,051 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered the gross sum stated. | Upheld | — | £438 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,540
- 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.