Case 3204951/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Berkeley v Clarity Products Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3204951/2021
- Decision date
- 30 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Berkeley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment, and that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,114.28 in total, and the listed hearing was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £1,395.02 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,395 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £627.84. | Upheld | — | £628 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £91.44. | Upheld | — | £91 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,114
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.