Case 3313132/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Harrison v Reform FM Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313132/2021
- Decision date
- 22 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Harrison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Miss R Harrison against Reform FM Ltd. The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,802.38, described as 33 days at a salary of £30,996 per year.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £278.17, calculated as one twelfth of the annual entitlement of 5.6 weeks per year. In addition, the claim for failure to give notice succeeded, and the tribunal awarded £120 in damages representing the loss of one week's net pay.
The judgment does not set out any broader reasoning beyond these figures and findings, and it records no separate award breakdown beyond the sums ordered on each head of claim. The total of the orders made is £3,200.55.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,802.38 for unauthorised deductions from wages, calculated as 33 days at £30,996 per year. | Upheld | — | £2,802 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £278.17, described as one twelfth of the annual entitlement of 5.6 weeks per year. | Upheld | — | £278 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim for failure to give notice succeeded and awards damages of £120, representing the claimant's loss of one week's net pay. | Upheld | — | £120 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,201
- 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.