Case 2603636/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Briggs v Buckley Lamb Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603636/2019
- Decision date
- 18 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Briggs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £514.04.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,084.24. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,770.00.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £257.02. The hearing listed for 29 April 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and orders payment of the net sum. | Upheld | — | £514 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages. | Upheld | — | £3,084 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £7,770 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £257 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,625
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.