Case 1600243/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Gaudencio v Hayley Hartson — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600243/2020
- Decision date
- 19 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RL Brace
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Gaudencio
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld all three claims brought by Ms S Gaudencio against Hayley Hartson. It found that the respondent was in breach of contract because it did not give notice of termination or make a payment in lieu of notice, and it awarded damages of one week’s pay, assessed at £70.00.
The tribunal also found a breach of Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because the respondent did not pay the claimant for 7 hours of accrued but untaken holiday on termination. It awarded £70.00 for that element. Finally, under section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of 12 weeks’ pay taken without the claimant’s authorisation, and awarded £840.00. The total sum payable was £980.00, subject to any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to give notice of termination or make a payment in lieu of notice, and awarded one week’s pay. | Upheld | — | £70 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay 7 hours’ accrued but untaken holiday on termination, referring to Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £70 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that 12 weeks’ pay had been deducted from the claimant’s wages without authorisation under section 13(1) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £840 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £980
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.