Case 2603261/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Catherine Clifford v Mr Clive Whiting — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603261/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester - remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Catherine Clifford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely on 22 January 2021 before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone. The tribunal recorded that the respondent, Mr Clive Whiting, had made an unlawful deduction of wages from the claimant, Miss Catherine Clifford, in respect of unpaid holiday pay. It ordered the respondent to pay £722.50 for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract for failing to give proper notice of termination of contract. It ordered damages of £170 for that breach of contract claim.
The complaint as to a redundancy payment was dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of wages in respect of unpaid holiday pay and ordered payment of £722.50. | Upheld | — | £723 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract for failure to give proper notice of termination and ordered damages of £170. | Upheld | — | £170 |
| Redundancy | The complaint as to a redundancy payment was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £893
- 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.