Case 3307191/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Creffield v Oakwood Management Consulting — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307191/2023
- Decision date
- 21 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Creffield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South-East Employment Tribunal on 21 June 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time.
Employment Judge Hutchings decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The claim succeeds, with remedy to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not separately identify or analyse this claim type; classification follows the listing categories provided in the prompt. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not separately identify or analyse this claim type; classification follows the listing categories provided in the prompt. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not separately identify or analyse this claim type; classification follows the listing categories provided in the prompt. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not separately identify or analyse this claim type; classification follows the listing categories provided in the prompt. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.