Case 1406208/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Ball v Ms Rogers and Ms Collings t/a Bubbles 2 — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406208/2020
- Decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Ball
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing, so the tribunal proceeded in her absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment also corrected the respondent's name to Julie Rogers and Denise Collings t/a Bubbles 2.
The respondent did not contest the holiday pay claim. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £261.60, described in the judgment as 5 days' holiday pay.
The judgment records that the remaining claims for arrears of pay and other payments failed and were dismissed. No separate monetary award was made for those dismissed claims, and the judgment gives no further breakdown beyond the single holiday pay payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent did not contest the holiday pay claim. The tribunal ordered payment of £261.60 for 5 days' holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £262 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the remaining claims for arrears of pay and other payments failed and were dismissed, but it does not break out the figures or identify each remaining head separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £262
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.