Case 3300008/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Banks v Club — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300008/2022
- Decision date
- 4 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Banks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Banks presented her claim on 2 January 2022. The respondent, The Club Group Limited, did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge George Date determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £769.23 gross. It also found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered £923.08 gross in respect of holiday pay. The tribunal further found that the respondent was in breach of contract because it had failed to reimburse business expenses, awarding £52.22 damages.
The judgment records that after deduction of tax and national insurance, the net sum payable under the wage and holiday pay paragraphs was £1,409.17. The total sum payable by the respondent, including the breach of contract damages, was £1,461.39. The judgment was sent to the parties on 4 December 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £769.23 gross. | Upheld | — | £769 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £923.08 gross. | Upheld | — | £923 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract for failure to reimburse business expenses and awarded £52.22 damages. | Upheld | — | £52 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,461
- 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.