Case 3320542/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Harding-Baxter v Knockbawn Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320542/2021
- Decision date
- 29 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Harding-Baxter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 14 September 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was therefore entered on the basis of the claim and the documents before the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £18,332.00 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £9,166.00 gross in damages for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,651.59 gross. The total sum awarded was £30,149.59 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £18,332 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for notice on the basis that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £9,166 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,652 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,150
- 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.