Case 1404458/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Luca v Visionwood Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404458/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Luca
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Visionwood Limited had failed to pay Ms A Luca in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave. The parties had agreed the key facts: Ms Luca was a zero hours worker who always worked 16 hours per week, did not take any holiday, her employment ran from 8 April 2021 to 9 September 2022, and she was paid £8.91 per hour until 3 April 2022 and £9.50 per hour thereafter.
On that agreed basis, the tribunal held that Ms Luca was owed a shortfall for both holiday years she worked. It found that the amount due was £183.26 for leave year 2021 and £90.22 for leave year 2022. The respondent had already paid £349.91 in respect of leave year 2021 and £542.89 in respect of leave year 2022, but those payments did not remove the remaining balance identified by the tribunal.
The tribunal therefore ordered Visionwood Limited to pay Ms Luca £273.48 in total, subject to any usual deductions for PAYE purposes.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave and quantified the shortfall at £183.26 for leave year 2021 and £90.22 for leave year 2022, making a total award of £273.48 subject to PAYE deductions. | Upheld | — | £273 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £273
- 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.