Case 6002993/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Bailiss v Geoffrey Hill & Co — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002993/2025
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Bailiss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 28 January 2025. The Respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Heap determined that a determination could properly be made under Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing. The hearing previously listed for 2 May 2025 was cancelled.
On the merits, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages, that the Claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that the Claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £3,427.50 gross for unauthorised deductions, £20,505.00 in damages for breach of contract (notice), and £21,000.00 as a redundancy payment, totalling £44,922.50. The judgment did not break the award down into basic, compensatory, injury to feelings, or interest components.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; £3,427.50 gross ordered. | Upheld | — | £3,428 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £20,505.00 awarded. | Upheld | — | £20,505 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment of £21,000.00 awarded. | Upheld | — | £21,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £44,923
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.