Case 1400478/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms E Tegerdine, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400478/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Bristol, before Employment Judge A Richardson sitting alone, heard the claimant in person and the respondent by solicitor. It held that the claimant's claims for unlawful deduction from wages and contractual unpaid holiday entitlement were well founded.
The judgment did not set out a separate liability analysis beyond recording that the claims succeeded. It attached a schedule of calculation showing a gross daily rate of £384.62 and identifying the award for unpaid sick pay as £18,846.38 for 49 days claimed.
The schedule also identified a separate award of £3,846.20 for contractual holiday pay, described as unlawful deduction from wages in respect of 10 days' unpaid holiday entitlement. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £22,692.58, subject to tax deductions, and noted that taxation was to be dealt with through payroll or self assessment if not already done.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The schedule described this element as 'Unlawful deduction from wages - Sick pay' and assessed it at £18,846.38 gross. | Upheld | — | £18,846 |
| Holiday pay | The schedule described this element as 'Unlawful deduction from wages – contractual holiday pay' and assessed it at £3,846.20 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,693
- 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.