Case 2603100/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Gioia Reddish v Joan Jeanette (Netty) Reddish and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603100/2021
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs M Gioia Reddish
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Nottingham hybrid hearing on 5 May 2022 before Judge McTigue, the claimant withdrew the holiday pay complaint, and that complaint was dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that the complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and failure to receive a redundancy payment were not well founded and were dismissed.
In relation to unlawful deductions from wages, the respondent admitted liability. The tribunal therefore found that an unlawful deduction had been made from the claimant’s wages and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £771. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided unless separately requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states this complaint was dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment refers to a failure to receive a redundancy payment; this complaint was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent admitted liability; the tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £771. | Upheld | — | £771 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £771
- 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.