Case 3201139/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Sophie Honychurch v Two Doors One T Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201139/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sophie Honychurch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not enter a response, and the claim was therefore considered by an employment judge under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal found that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages was well founded and succeeded.
The judgment records a deduction of £1,560 from wages due on 28 February 2024. The amount was calculated by reference to 120 hours at an agreed hourly rate of £10.18 basic plus £2.72 contractual service charge, making £13.00 per hour, and 54 hours at that rate produced the figure of £1,560.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,560. No separate heads of award, interest, or other remedy components are recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim accrued between 25 January and 23 February 2024 and was said to fall due on 28 February 2014; the due date appears inconsistent with the surrounding 2024 dates, so this has been treated cautiously. | Upheld | — | £1,560 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,560
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.