Case 3304150/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Donaldson v Gairy ET Group Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304150/2019
- Decision date
- 5 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Representation
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Donaldson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing before Employment Judge King at Cambridge on 12 November 2019, the tribunal found that Gairy ET Group Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mrs E Donaldson's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £28,119.93. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded net damages of £3,729.36.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £5,407.58 net. In addition, it found non-compliance with the ACAS code of practice and, under s207A TULCRA 1992, applied a 25% uplift of £9,314.22. The total award under paragraphs 1 to 4 was £46,571.09.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum. | Upheld | — | £28,120 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded net damages. | Upheld | — | £3,729 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the net sum. | Upheld | — | £5,408 |
| Other | The tribunal found non-compliance with the ACAS code of practice and applied a 25% uplift under s207A TULCRA 1992. | Upheld | — | £9,314 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,571
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s207A TULCRA 1992
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.