Case 3311110/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Bailey v Stretched And Fired Operations Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311110/2024
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Bailey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss E Bailey, presented her claim on 13 November 2024. The respondent, Stretched & Fired Operations Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £562.21 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £71.25 for that element. The total sum payable was £633.46.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £562.21 gross. | Upheld | — | £562 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £71.25. | Upheld | — | £71 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £633
- 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.