Case 1304214/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Hayley Shufflebotham v Any 'Owd Oatcake Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304214/2021
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Hayley Shufflebotham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard via CVP at Birmingham on 22 February 2022 before Employment Judge Boyle. The judgment records that the correct name of the respondent is Any ‘Owd Oatcake Ltd, and that the respondent did not attend the hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment. It ordered the respondent to pay £213.84 gross, described in the judgment as the gross sum unlawfully deducted.
The tribunal also awarded the claimant £285.12 as additional compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The total financial award recorded in the judgment is £498.96.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £214 |
| Other | Additional compensation awarded under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £285 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £499
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.