Case 3202334/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Taylor v Lisa and Tristan Benson — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202334/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondents did not present an ET3 response by 4 December 2019. On the material before the tribunal, it found that the respondents had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered them to pay £198.00 gross.
The separate claim for notice pay did not succeed. Employment Judge Moor held that the claimant was not entitled to statutory notice of dismissal because she had not been continuously employed for one month, referring to section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The listed hearing on 24 February 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondents had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £198.00. | Upheld | — | £198 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay did not succeed. The tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to statutory notice of dismissal because she had not been continuously employed for one month, referring to section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £198
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.