Case 6021677/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Diamond v Impact Business Shared Services Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021677/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Diamond
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal on 11 December 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge French determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the available material.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, had dismissed her in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay her holiday entitlement. An outstanding pension contribution was also recorded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £3,824.86.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; £2,039.56 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,040 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; £400.03 net awarded as damages. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; £1,014.86 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,015 |
| Working time regulations | Judgment refers to an outstanding pension contribution of £370.41; classified as working_time/other unpaid entitlement as the judgment does not specify the precise statutory basis. Confidence reduced accordingly. | Upheld | — | £370 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,825
- 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.