Case 1400574/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Edwards, for Mrs Peverelle and Mr Karaca, The following claimants appeared in pers v Botleigh Grange Hotel Ltd (In Administration) and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400574/2019
- Decision date
- 17 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Edwards, for Mrs Peverelle and Mr Karaca, The following claimants appeared in pers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by CVP before Employment Judge Dawson, with no attendance for the respondents. The tribunal was satisfied that it had jurisdiction, and it found that at the date of termination Mrs E Peverelle was employed by Botleigh Grange Hotel Ltd, while the remaining claimants to whom the judgment relates were employed by Addison Way Ltd.
For Mrs Peverelle, the tribunal declared that the Secretary of State for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy ought to make a payment under section 182 Employment Rights Act 1996 of £495.99 in respect of unpaid wages and £256 in respect of holiday pay. The tribunal also dismissed Mrs Peverelle's claim against Botleigh Grange Ltd.
In relation to Mr Karaca, the tribunal found that Addison Way Ltd made an unauthorised deduction from wages and failed to pay holiday pay, and ordered payment of £8,422.50, including an uplift of 25%, and £2,060. The claims against Botleigh Grange Ltd were dismissed, and the claim against the Secretary of State for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy was dismissed.
The tribunal made similar findings for the remaining claimants. Miss Tate succeeded on an unauthorised deduction from wages claim for £2,645.76. Miss Gordon succeeded on unauthorised deduction from wages and holiday pay claims for £1,462.50 and £432. Mr Galyer succeeded on claims for £2,744 and £468. Mr Pestana succeeded on claims for £2,481.53 and £336.70, with the claim against the Secretary of State for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy dismissed. Miss Powell succeeded on an unauthorised deduction from wages claim for £1,350, and Miss Roe succeeded on an unauthorised deduction from wages claim for £1,950. The total monetary figure in the judgment is £25,104.98.
Claims and outcomes
13 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Declared payable by the Secretary of State under section 182 Employment Rights Act 1996; the claim against Botleigh Grange Ltd was dismissed. | Upheld | — | £496 |
| Holiday pay | Declared payable by the Secretary of State under section 182 Employment Rights Act 1996; the claim against Botleigh Grange Ltd was dismissed. | Upheld | — | £256 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Addison Way Ltd was ordered to pay this sum, including a 25% uplift; the claims against Botleigh Grange Ltd and the Secretary of State were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £8,423 |
| Holiday pay | Addison Way Ltd was ordered to pay this sum. | Upheld | — | £2,060 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Addison Way Ltd was ordered to pay this sum. | Upheld | — | £2,646 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Addison Way Ltd was ordered to pay this sum. | Upheld | — | £1,463 |
| Holiday pay | Addison Way Ltd was ordered to pay this sum. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,105
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.182 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.