Case 1600499/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Holland v Lumina Investments Limited Heard: via video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600499/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Holland
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Jenkins heard the case by video on 27 and 28 January 2021. The judgment records that Miss S Holland succeeded in her claim of unfair dismissal against Lumina Investments Limited. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a compensatory award of £2,793.44 for that claim.
The claimant also succeeded on her wage-related claims. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of £415.38 gross. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay for accrued but untaken holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £484.61 gross. The judgment notes that income tax and employee national insurance contributions may be due on the sums awarded for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.
This written record contains the operative decision only. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note on reasons.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,793 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £415 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £485 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,693
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,793
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.