Case 1401758/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Cristie Stunell v Billy4Shoes Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401758/2022
- Decision date
- 16 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- Bristol ET via VHS
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. Cristie Stunell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol ET via VHS on 15 September 2022 before Employment Judge G. King, upheld the Claimant's claim for notice pay. It found that claim well founded and ordered Billy4Shoes Ltd to pay £375.00, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal also upheld the Claimant's claim for unpaid holiday. It found that claim well founded and ordered payment of £562.50, again subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance.
In addition, the tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £900.00 in respect of its failure to provide Written Particulars of Employment. The written record does not set out separate legal reasoning beyond those findings, and no legal tests are named in the judgment text provided. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £1,837.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim in respect of notice pay; the tribunal said it was well founded and ordered payment of £375.00 subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £375 |
| Holiday pay | Claim in respect of unpaid holiday; the tribunal said it was well founded and ordered payment of £562.50 subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £563 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered £900.00 in respect of the respondent's failure to provide Written Particulars of Employment. | Upheld | — | £900 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,838
- 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.