Case 2600416/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Key v Denise Anderson — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600416/2023
- Decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Key
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 21 February 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £253.50 net. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,265. The total sum ordered was £1,488.50.
The hearing listed for 23 June 2023 was cancelled. Judgment was signed by Employment Judge Swann on 22 May 2023 and sent to the parties on 29 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment; respondent failed to present a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £254 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement awarded under Rule 21 default judgment. Judgment does not specify whether classified under Working Time Regulations or holiday pay; mapped to holiday_pay as the substantive claim. | Upheld | — | £1,265 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,489
- 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.