Case 3206645/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Baker v Hatters & Hills Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206645/2021
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the East London Employment Tribunals on 26 October 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Russell proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered Hatters & Hills Ltd to pay Miss A Baker £4,651.80 gross in respect of that claim.
The claim for the claimant’s holiday entitlement was dismissed, as was the claim for breach of contract in respect of notice. The judgment records a total award of £4,651.80 and cancels the hearing listed on 25 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,652 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to the claimant’s 'holiday entitlement' without further detail; classified as holiday_pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in respect of notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,652
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.