Case 2602315/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Rafferty v Laud Engineering Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602315/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Rafferty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Nottingham Employment Tribunals on 20 September 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge dealt with the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 18 February 2022 was cancelled.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £923.10 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £384.28 net for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £415.40 gross. The judgment does not record any separate findings on discrimination, dismissal fairness, or other remedies beyond these monetary awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded £923.10 gross. | Upheld | — | £923 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £384.28 net. | Upheld | — | £384 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £415.40 gross. | Upheld | — | £415 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,723
- 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.