Case 3204215/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McKenzie v KidsLoop — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204215/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McKenzie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Kidsloop (UK) Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation). The claimant did not appear, and the respondent also did not appear. No evidence was produced by the claimant.
The claim for unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and failed. The tribunal’s stated reason was that the claimant did not appear and produced no evidence.
The claim for breach of contract, said to concern failure to pay notice pay under Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, was also found not well-founded and failed for the same reason. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal said it was not well-founded and failed because the claimant did not appear and produced no evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for failure to pay notice pay under Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal said it was not well-founded and failed because the claimant did not appear and produced no evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.