Case 3202223/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Johnson v SS1 Entertainments Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202223/2023
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yale Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not lodge an ET3 response, so Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 applied. Despite that, the tribunal recorded a dismissal of the claimant’s discrimination claim on the grounds of pregnancy/maternity.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £7,319.36 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. The judgment does not split that sum between individual heads of loss.
The claimant’s claims for holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal ordered a total payment of £7,319.36.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £7,319.36 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. | Upheld | — | £7,319 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the notice pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,319
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,319
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal 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.