Case 1306478/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Halat v Ideal Aircraft Seating — 2019
- Case reference
- 1306478/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wynn-Evans
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Halat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 10 December 2019, Employment Judge Wynn-Evans sat alone and the respondent did not appear. The judgment records that Mrs E Halat's claims succeeded and awards her £474.40 net unpaid wages, £96 in respect of accrued but untaken leave entitlement under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, £576 in respect of leave which was taken, and £1,280 under the Employment Act 2002.
The written record does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing, but it does record the final disposal and the amounts awarded. The total sum payable by Ideal Aircraft Seating is £2,426.40.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Awarded £96 in respect of accrued but untaken leave entitlement for the purposes of regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £96 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded £576 in respect of leave which was taken. | Upheld | — | £576 |
| Other | The judgment awards £1,280 under the Employment Act 2002, but the extracted text does not state the section number or identify the underlying statutory issue more precisely. | Upheld | — | £1,280 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded £474.40 by way of net unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £474 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,426
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.