Case 1600604/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lillian Scott v Waffle Shacks Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600604/2022
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lillian Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Lillian Scott was employed by Waffle Shacks Limited. The respondent did not file a response form ET3 and did not attend the hearing, which took place in Cardiff by CVP on 28 September 2022 before Employment Judge W Brady.
The tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because it failed to pay the claimant a sum in lieu of 3.23 weeks' holiday accrued but untaken by the date her employment ended. The tribunal ordered payment of £517.00 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found a breach of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent did not provide written particulars of employment. It ordered payment of 2 weeks' pay, assessed at £320.12. The total amount payable was therefore £827.13.
The judgment recorded that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded at paragraphs 3 and 4.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found a breach of Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because the respondent failed to pay a sum in lieu of 3.23 weeks' accrued but untaken holiday on termination. | Upheld | — | £517 |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent did not provide written particulars of employment and awarded 2 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £320 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £827
- across all upheld claims
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.