Case 1404732/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H v O’Shaughnessy AND Zuzimo Intercontinental Restaurant Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1404732/2019
- Decision date
- 24 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in chambers at Plymouth on 24 November 2020 and struck out the respondent’s response under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) because the respondent had not complied with Tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the response. The judgment therefore proceeded on the claimant’s claims, all of which succeeded.
Miss H O’Shaughnessy was awarded £427.18 gross for unlawful deduction from wages and £350.28 gross for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. The judgment also records that the respondent failed to issue a written statement of employment particulars.
For that failure to provide written particulars, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay two weeks’ pay in the sum of £427.18. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £1,204.64 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded; respondent ordered to pay the gross sum of £427.18. | Upheld | — | £427 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeded; respondent ordered to pay the gross sum of £350.28. | Upheld | — | £350 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to issue a written statement of employment particulars and ordered two weeks' pay in the sum of £427.18. | Upheld | — | £427 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,205
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.