Case 3302346/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Hill v Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302346/2023
- Decision date
- 15 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 15 March 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the claim was undefended, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £5,733.00 gross. The breach of contract claim concerning pension contributions also succeeded, but the amount of compensation for that claim was left to be considered at a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £5,733.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £5,733 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim in respect of pension contributions succeeds, with compensation to be considered at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,733
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.