Case 1307400/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H. Tang v Serve (Birmingham) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307400/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J. Jones Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H. Tang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Birmingham on 13 February 2020, before Employment Judge J. Jones, the respondent did not appear. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application to join Eastgate Care Limited as a second respondent and proceeded to determine the outstanding claims against Serve (Birmingham) Limited.
The tribunal ordered Serve (Birmingham) Limited to pay Miss H. Tang £942.31, subject to deduction of tax and National Insurance, by way of unpaid holiday pay. It also ordered payment of £3,500 by way of unpaid expenses.
In addition, the tribunal ordered the respondent to provide itemised pay statements showing payments and deductions made in connection with the holiday pay and the claimant's final salary payment in or about July 2019. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Awarded as unpaid holiday pay, subject to deduction of tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £942 |
| Other | Awarded by way of unpaid expenses; the written record does not specify the legal label used for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | £3,500 |
| Other | The respondent was ordered to provide itemised pay statements showing payments and deductions connected with the holiday pay and the claimant's final salary payment in or about July 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,442
- 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.