Case 1303706/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss v Anderson Inspired Kitchen Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303706/2023
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the telephone preliminary hearing on 28 November 2023 before Employment Judge Hughes, with the respondent not in attendance, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's age discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment states that this did not affect the remaining discrimination claims, which were listed for a remedy hearing by CVP on 3 April 2024.
The tribunal also noted that the respondent had failed to file a defence to the monetary claims. On that basis, it concluded that the claims for unpaid holiday entitlement of £640.00 and unpaid overtime of £450.00 were well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,090.00 net in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the age discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal at the telephone preliminary hearing on 28 November 2023. It also states that this did not affect the remaining discrimination claims, which were listed for a remedy hearing on 3 April 2024. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid holiday entitlement of £640.00 well-founded after the respondent failed to file a defence. | Upheld | — | £640 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid overtime of £450.00 well-founded after the respondent failed to file a defence; the judgment does not specify a separate statutory label for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | £450 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,090
- 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.