Case 2600228/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Karen Tyers v Teapot Cafe Burton Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600228/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Karen Tyers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Karen Tyers presented her claim in the Midlands East Region of the Employment Tribunal on 2 March 2025. Teapot Cafe Burton Limited failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Clark determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The hearing listed for 1 August 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered Teapot Cafe Burton Limited to pay Mrs Tyers £3,620.50 gross in respect of that claim. The tribunal also held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £292.50 gross.
No separate award for interest, injury to feelings, or other heads of loss is recorded in the judgment. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment is £3,913.00 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,620.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,621 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £292.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £293 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,913
- 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.