Case 2500262/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Patterson v Mr B Penfold — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500262/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Patterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, in a Rule 21 judgment on the merits, found Miss M Patterson's claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well-founded. It also found her holiday pay claim under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 to be well-founded.
The tribunal further held that the claim for wrongful dismissal, described in the judgment as notice pay, was well-founded. By contrast, the claim for a redundancy payment was found not to be well-founded and was dismissed.
The judgment records that compensation for the successful claims would be decided at a remedy hearing, so no monetary award is set out in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claim under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the wrongful dismissal claim, described as notice pay, was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.