Case 6022228/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Mollick v Renaissance Personnel Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022228/2024
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Mollick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 17 December 2024 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. This was a default judgment on the papers, and the tribunal made findings and awards on the pleaded heads of claim.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £5,530.33 net. That figure comprised £4,424.26 net unpaid wages plus a 25% ACAS uplift of £1,106.07 for breach of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract as to notice and awarded £896.24 in damages.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £896.24. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and awarded £270.76. In relation to unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded £500 compensation for loss of statutory rights and recorded that recoupment did not apply to that sum.
The tribunal further found failures to provide statutory employment documents. It awarded £896.24 for failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under s.92(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, with the amount described as two weeks’ pay under s.93(2). It also awarded £896.24 for failure to give a new statement of employment particulars for the claimant’s Care Coordinator role under s.4 ERA 1996 and s.38 Employment Act 2002. The total award was £9,886.05 and the hearing listed for 1 July 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages; the award included £4,424.26 net unpaid wages plus a 25% ACAS uplift of £1,106.07. | Upheld | — | £5,530 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £896 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy; redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £896 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £271 |
| Unfair dismissal | Compensation awarded for unfair dismissal, described as compensation for loss of statutory rights; recoupment did not apply. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under s.92(2) ERA 1996; award made under s.93(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £896 |
| Other | Failure to give a new statement of employment particulars for the claimant's Care Coordinator role under s.4 ERA 1996 and s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,886
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.92(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.93(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.4 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.