Case 2600689/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Teri Gibbons v BPMS08 Limited (Formerly known as Horne Bros Carpets Limited) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600689/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Teri Gibbons
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the claim under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis it held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,426.67 gross.
It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £6,720, and that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy, giving rise to a redundancy payment of £7,840.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. No basic award was ordered because it was discharged by the redundancy payment, and the respondent was ordered to pay £3,169.32 compensation for loss of wages, calculated as £9,889.32 less £6,720. The combined monetary awards totalled £20,155.99, and the hearing listed for 1 August 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £2,427 |
| Breach of contract | Damages in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £6,720 |
| Redundancy | Claimant was found entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £7,840 |
| Unfair dismissal | No basic award was ordered because it was discharged by the redundancy payment; compensation for loss of wages was assessed at £3,169.32. | Upheld | — | £3,169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,156
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,169
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.