Case 6017276/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Stephanie Burlington v Formax Credit (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017276/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Stephanie Burlington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the London Central Employment Tribunal on 14 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge E Burns determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The claimant had been employed by the respondent from 4 September 2023 to 21 March 2025.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages by failing to pay her February and March 2025 salary, totalling £7,791.66 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of her entitlement to three months' notice, and ordered damages of £13,750.00 gross. The respondent had additionally failed to pay 8.5 days of accrued but untaken holiday pay, in the sum of £1,298.61 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £22,840.27 in total, with the claimant to account to HMRC for any tax or national insurance contributions due. The hearing listed for 21 October 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions: unpaid February and March 2025 salary, £7,791.66 gross. | Upheld | — | £7,792 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract; 3 months' notice; damages of £13,750.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £13,750 |
| Holiday pay | 8.5 days accrued but untaken holiday pay, £1,298.61 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,299 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,840
- 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.