Case 1405093/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Diaz Miss C Fitzgerald Miss M Diaz v Botleigh Grange Hotel and Spa Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1405093/2018
- Decision date
- 21 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Diaz Miss C Fitzgerald Miss M Diaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Botleigh Grange Hotel and Spa Ltd did not present responses to the claims brought by Miss K Diaz, Miss C Fitzgerald and Miss M Diaz. Acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal held that the claims succeeded.
The written record supplied does not set out the underlying facts, evidence, or separate reasoning for each cause of action. It therefore records the default judgment outcome only, without any substantive liability findings beyond the respondent's failure to respond.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the remedy to which the claimants are entitled would be decided at a separate remedy hearing on 28 June 2019 at Southampton Magistrates' Court, 100 The Avenue, Southampton, SO17 1EY at 12:00pm.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not specify the underlying facts or a separate analysis for this claim. It records that the respondent did not present responses and that the claims succeeded under Rule 21; classification follows the gov.uk case listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not specify the underlying facts or a separate analysis for this claim. It records that the respondent did not present responses and that the claims succeeded under Rule 21; classification follows the gov.uk case listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not specify the underlying facts or a separate analysis for this claim. It records that the respondent did not present responses and that the claims succeeded under Rule 21; classification follows the gov.uk case listing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.