Case 2600199/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Gray v Active Lifestyle Limited and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600199/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Miss D Gray
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 9 June 2023 Employment Judge M Butler issued a rule 21 judgment after the first respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The claims against the second, third and fourth respondents were dismissed. The judgment records awards only against the first respondent.
The tribunal found that the first respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Miss Gray's wages and ordered payment of £5,666.66 gross. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £2,833.33 in damages, and that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,142.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £784.62 gross. Separate awards were made for unpaid expenses of £64.60 and unpaid pension contributions of £1,133.58. The total amount payable by the first respondent was £11,624.79.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,833 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,142 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £785 |
| Other | Award for the claimant's unpaid expenses. | Upheld | — | £65 |
| Other | Award for the claimant's unpaid pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £1,134 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,667 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,625
- 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.