Case 2500695/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Williams First v Aspins Bakery Limited Second Respondent: North East Takeaways Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500695/2022
- Decision date
- 25 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Williams First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the second respondent made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages on 4, 11, 18 and 25 March 2022, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay the deducted amount of £898.29, subject to any deductions required by law for tax and/or national insurance.
The tribunal also found that the second respondent breached the claimant's contract of employment by terminating it without notice. That claim was well founded, but no damages were awarded because the claimant had not proved any loss. The claimant's holiday pay complaint was dismissed.
The judgment further records that the claimant's claims against the first respondent were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the second respondent made unlawful deductions from wages on 4, 11, 18 and 25 March 2022, contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent was ordered to pay the amount deducted, subject to any deductions required by law for tax and/or national insurance. | Upheld | — | £898 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the second respondent breached the contract of employment by terminating it without notice, but awarded no damages because the claimant had not proved any loss. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was not made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £898
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.