Case 2600128/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Bowles v Tempest Rentals (Stickney) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600128/2022
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Bowles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 19 January 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 without a contested hearing.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, redundancy payment, and unpaid holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,380 gross for unauthorised deductions, £1,620 gross for breach of contract damages, £3,645 gross as a redundancy payment, and £2,268 gross for holiday entitlement.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,380 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,380 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered £1,620 gross damages. | Upheld | — | £1,620 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,645 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,645 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £2,268 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,268 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,913
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.