Case 1403838/2021 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v In person. — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403838/2021
- Decision date
- 19 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent accepted at the hearing that the information provided by both claimants was correct and that, in principle, the claims were not disputed. She said she had no means to meet any judgment, but the tribunal recorded that inability to pay is not a defence to the claims.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that before the covid pandemic there was no automatic right to carry over unused holiday, but that this changed at the start of the pandemic. Neither Ms A Thomas nor Ms C Caswell had taken any holiday in 2020, so each was entitled to carry over four weeks' unused holiday under the regulations. For the 2021 holiday year, each also had one week pro rata unused holiday.
The tribunal therefore held that each claimant was owed five weeks' holiday pay. It ordered the respondent to pay Ms A Thomas and Ms C Caswell redundancy pay of £2,197.44 each, notice pay of £1,464.96 each, and unpaid holiday pay of £1,046.40 each, giving a total of £3,708.80 per claimant and £7,417.60 across both judgments.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal ordered redundancy pay for both Ms A Thomas and Ms C Caswell at £2,197.44 each. | Upheld | — | £2,197 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered notice pay for both claimants at £1,464.96 each. | Upheld | — | £1,465 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered unpaid holiday pay for both claimants at £1,046.40 each. | Upheld | — | £1,046 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,418
- 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.