Case 1405486/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lynda Annie v George AND Westcountry Spice Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405486/2019
- Decision date
- 3 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lynda Annie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in chambers at Plymouth on 3 January 2020 and entered judgment under Rule 21 because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. On that basis, the claimant, Miss Lynda Annie George, succeeded in her claims for breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and accrued but unpaid holiday pay against Westcountry Spice Company Limited.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay notice pay in the net sum of £900.00 for the breach of contract claim, £154.93 gross for the unlawful deduction from wages claim, and £114.75 gross for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. It then applied a 25% uplift to the above awards because of the respondent’s failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, referring to section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The additional uplift was £292.48, producing a total award of £1,462.16.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded in the net sum of £900.00. | Upheld | — | £900 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded the gross sum of £154.93. | Upheld | — | £155 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but unpaid holiday pay awarded in the gross sum of £114.75. | Upheld | — | £115 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,462
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.