Case 4100525/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Yvonne Henderson v AWH Pro-tect CIC (In Liquidation) — 2024

Case reference: 4100525/2024
Decision date: 25 January 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge A Kemp

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Yvonne Henderson

Respondent

AWH Pro-tect CIC (In Liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a Response Form and had ceased to trade. It relied on the claimant's explanation and documents rather than hearing evidence from the respondent. The claimant, Ms Yvonne Henderson, had been employed by AWH Pro-Tect CIC from 1 January 2021 and was paid £560 gross per week, paid four-weekly.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Unpaid wages for the four-week period up to 28 November 2023; awarded gross and subject to any appropriate statutory deductions.	Upheld	—	£560
Holiday pay	Accrued holiday pay calculated under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the tribunal also described this as an unauthorised deduction from wages claim.	Upheld	—	£713
Breach of contract	Notice pay for termination without notice; the tribunal accepted the contract provided for one month’s notice after probation.	Upheld	—	£607
Redundancy	Statutory redundancy payment; the tribunal calculated this as three weeks' pay.	Upheld	—	£420

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,300; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.