Case 6042049/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Susan Hoey v Oliver Myles Events Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6042049/2025
- Decision date
- 18 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Susan Hoey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSusan Hoey presented the claim in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 14 November 2025. Oliver Myles Events Ltd did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Ms Hoey’s wages and ordered payment of £247.95 gross. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,652.54 in damages. The tribunal found that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £4,091.17. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement and awarded £247.95. These awards total £7,239.61.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £248 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,653 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,091 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £248 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,240
- 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.