Case 2603126/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Lievesley v Elston Pre-School — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603126/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Lievesley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 21 December 2022. The respondent submitted a response but did not contest the claim, and Employment Judge Victoria Butler determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 21 April 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Elston Pre-School had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £50 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,400 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,850. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £91.
The total sum payable was £5,391.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £50 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy; redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,850 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £91 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,391
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.