Case 3315249/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Mison v Pinford End Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3315249/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Mison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 23 December 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 that a determination could properly be made on the claim. The respondent is in creditors' voluntary liquidation.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,092 gross. It further found the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £1,092 to be paid, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £629.37.
The total sum ordered to be paid by the respondent to the claimant is £2,813.37. The hearing listed on 8 April 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross figure of £1,092 awarded for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,092 |
| Breach of contract | Damages of £1,092 for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,092 |
| Holiday pay | £629.37 awarded for unpaid holiday entitlement; rounded to nearest GBP integer. | Upheld | — | £629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,813
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
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.