Case 1400165/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Vernon v Jamie Rogers t/a Twenty-Seven by Jamie Rogers RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400165/2024
- Decision date
- 12 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Vernon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing heard at Southampton by CVP on 16 August 2024 before Employment Judge Self. The claimant, Miss K Vernon, appeared in person. The respondent, Jamie Rogers t/a Twenty-Seven by Jamie Rogers, did not appear and no response had been entered.
The tribunal found that the claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay was well-founded and awarded the claimant £1,456.69 in respect of that head of claim. It also declared that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages in the sum of £310.08 and ordered payment of that amount.
In addition, because the claimant had succeeded in the claim and the respondent had not provided particulars of employment pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal awarded £715.74 in respect of that failure. The total payable under the judgment was £2,502.51.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay was well-founded and awarded £1,456.69. | Upheld | — | £1,457 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that the respondent made unlawful deductions from wages in the sum of £310.08 and ordered payment of that sum. | Upheld | — | £310 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £715.74 because the respondent did not provide particulars of employment pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £716 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,503
- 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.