Case 3303917/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Harvey v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303917/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss L Harvey
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a default judgment issued by Employment Judge M Warren after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. The Employment Judge determined the matter on the basis of the information before the tribunal, without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages (£47.50), had dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice (£146.65 in damages), and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement (£711.25). Each of these claims was upheld and the respondent was ordered to pay the corresponding sums.
For the avoidance of doubt, the judgment records that the total payable by the respondent to the claimant under the terms of the judgment, without deduction and taxable in the hands of the claimant, is £905.40.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded £47.50; rounded to nearest integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £48 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; awarded £146.65, rounded. | Upheld | — | £147 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement; awarded £711.25, rounded. Layer 1 listing also referenced working_time, but the judgment addresses this as a holiday pay award. | Upheld | — | £711 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £905
- 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.