Case 3313140/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M O’Connor v Cavendish Place Private Clients Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313140/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge Quill on 6 August 2024 and sent to the parties on 10 October 2024. The tribunal determined the claims on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £319.83 net in respect of salary due for August 2023 and £1,480.71 gross in respect of salary due for 1 to 15 September 2023, each subject to any lawfully required PAYE deductions but without any other deduction or set off. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £862.85 on the same PAYE terms.
The judgment does not set out reasons, legal tests, or findings on any breach of contract claim referenced in the gov.uk listing categories; only the unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay sums are addressed in the document.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages: net sum for salary due for August 2023. | Upheld | — | £320 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages: gross sum for salary due 1 to 15 September 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,481 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £863 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,663
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.