Case 2600440/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Hallam v Steven Miller t/a Humber Street Bun Shop — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600440/2023
- Decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Hallam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the East Midlands Employment Tribunals on 27 February 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Heap determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £368.20 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £380.00. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £190.00.
The total sum payable was recorded as £938.20.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 wages and ordered payment of £368.20 gross. | Upheld | — | £368 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £380.00. | Upheld | — | £380 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £190.00. | Upheld | — | £190 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £938
- 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.