Case 6034727/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Nadine Davies v Jacqueline Farrell trading as The Launderette Station Heard: By video — 2026
- Case reference
- 6034727/2025
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nadine Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 19 September 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge S Moore determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure following a video hearing on 6 January 2026.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages totalling £846.00 gross. It also found the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars and that there were no exceptional circumstances making an award unjust or inequitable; under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 it awarded two weeks' gross pay of £247.61. The total payable was £1,093.61.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 default judgment. Unauthorised deductions from wages, gross. | Upheld | — | £846 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; two weeks' gross pay awarded under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £248 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,094
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- section 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.