Case 3201097/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ruby Holness Fairhurst v Two Doors One T Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201097/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ruby Holness Fairhurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Crosfill at the East London Hearing Centre (by CVP) heard the claim on 15 October 2024 with the claimant in person and the respondent neither appearing nor being represented. The judgment was made upon hearing the claimant and considering the documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found three claims well founded: an unlawful deduction from wages of £702 (6 shifts of 9 hours at £13/hour) accrued between 1 and 23 February 2024; accrued but untaken annual leave of £341.69 under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; and damages for breach of contract of £364 for failure to give contractual notice under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £1,407.69.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deduction of £702 from wages due 28 February 2024 (6 shifts x 9 hours x £13/hour). | Upheld | — | £702 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken annual leave under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £342 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give contractual notice under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (2 weeks x 14 hours x £13). | Upheld | — | £364 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,408
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.