Case 2501387/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Darcy 1st v Eazylaw Limited 2nd Respondent: Taylor Rose TTKW Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501387/2020
- Decision date
- 23 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Darcy 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Johnson determined the claim on the papers. The tribunal held that the 1st respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £394.08 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £131.36 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the 1st respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £328.40. The combined monetary awards in the judgment total £853.84.
The proceedings against the 2nd respondent were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The listed hearing on 28 September 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the 1st respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £394.08. | Upheld | — | £394 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £131.36. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the 1st respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £328.40. | Upheld | — | £328 |
| Other | The proceedings against the 2nd respondent were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £854
- 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.