Case 2601455/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Hicklin v Eyre’s of Chesterfield Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601455/2022
- Decision date
- 4 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Hicklin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hutchinson sat alone at a video hearing on 21 October 2022. The Respondent did not appear. The tribunal gave oral reasons only and later issued a written record of the decision on 4 November 2022.
The tribunal upheld all of the monetary claims recorded in the judgment. It found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs T Hicklin's wages and ordered payment of £773.80 gross. It also found that she was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,453.60 in damages. In addition, the tribunal found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £10,639.75, and it found that holiday entitlement had not been paid, awarding £116.07.
The judgment does not record any separate findings on discrimination or unfair dismissal, and no legal test is expressly named in the short reasons provided. The total monetary award recorded by the tribunal is the sum of the four amounts, namely £14,983.22.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £774 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,454 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £10,640 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £116 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,983
- 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.