Case 1300495/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Blunson v Beauticlean Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300495/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Blunson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Birmingham on 8 October 2019 in the absence of any appearance by either party. On the papers before it, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant the full amount due for holiday pay.
The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 28 days' holiday per year under the Working Time Regulations 1998. On the figures in the claim documents, that entitlement equated to 28 x £24 = £672 for a full year. Because the claimant had worked 91% of that holiday year, the tribunal calculated a pro rata entitlement of £612.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been paid £516 holiday pay in her final year of employment. The difference between the pro rata entitlement of £612 and the amount paid was £96, and the respondent was ordered to pay that gross sum to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 28 days' holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998, giving a pro rata entitlement of £612 for 91% of the holiday year. She had been paid £516, leaving an underpayment of £96. | Upheld | — | £96 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £96
- across all upheld claims
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.