Case 2600900/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Cross v UK Cleaning Contracts Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600900/2023
- Decision date
- 24 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Cross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was dealt with under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Adkinson Date therefore determined the claim on the papers. The judgment records that the tribunal was satisfied it could properly make a determination in accordance with rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,643.78 gross.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for holiday entitlement. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,881.65.
In relation to the written statement of employment particulars, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide one by the time the claim was presented. The judgment notes that no mitigation had been proffered, and the tribunal considered that an award of 4 weeks’ pay was just and equitable. It therefore ordered payment of £1,232. The judgment states that all future hearings were cancelled.
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 the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,643.78 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,644 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,881.65. | Upheld | — | £1,882 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars by the time the claim was presented. It said no mitigation had been proffered and awarded 4 weeks’ pay, namely £1,232. | Upheld | — | £1,232 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,757
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21
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.