Case 1401745/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Parson v Day to Day Property Maintenance Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401745/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Parson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 19 October 2019, the Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why its response to the claimant's claims of unpaid holiday pay should not be struck out, because it had not complied with the Tribunal's case management orders of 2 August 2019 and 24 September 2019 and/or was not actively pursuing its response. The respondent did not make representations or request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the response. It then found that the claimant's claim for accrued but unpaid annual leave was well founded and succeeded. No monetary sum was assessed in the judgment itself; instead, the claimant was directed to provide the Tribunal with a calculation identifying the sum claimed for unpaid annual leave, including the sum claimed as a day's pay and the calculation used to determine a day's pay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent's response to the claim was struck out after it failed to make representations or request a hearing following the Tribunal's letter of 19 October 2019. The claimant's claim for accrued but unpaid annual leave was found well founded and succeeded. The judgment did not quantify the award; it directed the claimant to provide a calculation of the sum claimed, including the sum claimed as a day's pay and the method used to calculate a day's pay. | Upheld | — | — |
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.