Case 6007992/2024 · Employment Tribunal
N McCabe v Kids 1st Steps Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6007992/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N McCabe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge therefore made a determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was issued as a default decision on the papers.
The tribunal found that Kids 1st Steps Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered repayment of the gross sum of £743.00. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded £171.00 as damages for one week's statutory notice.
The notice-pay award was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would be taxed on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. The total gross sum payable was therefore £914.00. The attached interest notice stated that interest would only arise if the sum was not paid in full within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent to the parties; it specified 3 December 2024 as the relevant decision day, 4 December 2024 as the calculation day, and an 8% per annum stipulated rate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £743 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice, calculated as 1 week's statutory notice using gross pay to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £171 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £914
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 12 Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.