Case 3300580/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Ridgway v Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300580/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Ridgway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge Hawksworth without a contested hearing. The tribunal upheld three complaints brought by the claimant against her former employer: unauthorised deduction from wages, breach of contract in relation to notice, and holiday pay.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in November and December 2022, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,538.42. On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £469.66 net in respect of notice pay. On the holiday pay claim, the tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken at the end of her employment, and ordered payment of £1,029.20 gross.
The judgment is brief and does not set out reasons or legal tests, as is typical for a Rule 21 default judgment. The aggregate of the sums ordered is £5,037.28.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in November and December 2022; respondent ordered to pay gross sum of £3,538.42. | Upheld | — | £3,538 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to notice pay; respondent ordered to pay net sum of £469.66. | Upheld | — | £470 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay for holidays accrued but not taken on termination; respondent ordered to pay gross sum of £1,029.20. Tribunal characterised this as an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,029 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,037
- 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.