Case 3303517/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Reade v Summer Breeze Holidays Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303517/2025
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Reade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 default judgment determined on the papers after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Tynan held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, dismissed her in breach of contract regarding notice, dismissed her by reason of redundancy without paying a redundancy payment, failed to pay her holiday entitlement, and was in breach of contract by not returning her personal laptop.
The tribunal awarded a total of £7,855.92, comprising £2,148.96 in unauthorised deductions, £1,385.84 in damages for breach of notice (net of mitigation earnings of £619.51), a redundancy payment of £2,930.40, holiday pay of £390.72, and £1,000 damages for the laptop.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for failing to return claimant's personal laptop. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,149 |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal/notice pay: damages of £1,385.84 net (£2,005.35 minus £619.51 mitigation earnings). | Upheld | — | £1,386 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £2,930 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £391 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,856
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.