Case 3321170/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Thorne v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3321170/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms D Thorne
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, so the tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. On that basis, the tribunal held that Trojan Property Maintenance Limited had made unlawful deductions from Ms Thorne’s wages, breached her contract of employment, and failed to pay all holiday pay due.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Ms Thorne £1,094.92. The judgment does not break that sum down between the individual heads of claim. It also records that a separate order had been issued in respect of the claimant’s compensation claim for harassment and stress, and that the payslips claim would continue to the hearing listed for 5 May 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal entered Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a response. The award was not apportioned between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal entered Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a response. The award was not apportioned between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that all holiday pay due had not been paid. The award was not apportioned between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,095
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.