Case 2600221/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Shirley v Rise2shine Ltd (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600221/2025
- Decision date
- 25 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Shirley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands Employment Tribunal on 10 February 2025. The respondent, which is in administration, failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Victoria Butler determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,253.29 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £442.12, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, awarding £156.00 in respect of 1.5 days' holiday pay.
The judgment records a total sum payable of £2,851.41.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; award stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £2,253 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £442 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement of 1.5 days. | Upheld | — | £156 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,851
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.