Case 2502420/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Barnes v Silksworth Top Club Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502420/2023
- Decision date
- 2 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Barnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 31 October 2023 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Aspden decided that the claim, or part of it, could be determined under Rule 21 on the uncontested facts in the claim form.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,050.86 gross. It also found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with those remedies to be determined at a hearing listed for 8 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £1,050.86 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,051 |
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment states the claimant was unfairly dismissed; remedy was to be determined at a hearing listed for 8 March 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; remedy was to be determined at a hearing listed for 8 March 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,051
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.