Case 1600653/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Kendall v Jay’s Café Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600653/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Kendall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss H Kendall’s claims were heard at Cardiff on 31 July 2023 before Employment Judge C Sharp sitting alone. The Respondent, Jay’s Cafe Ltd, was represented by its director, Mr G Boughey, and was noted as not defending the claim. The judgment was given with the consent of both parties.
The Tribunal held that the claim for redundancy pay was well founded and awarded £8,371.88 gross. It also held that the claim for the unpaid balance of notice pay was well founded and awarded £3,562.50 gross.
The Tribunal further held that the claim for accrued unpaid annual leave was well founded, and recorded that this was also considered to be an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. It awarded £712.50 gross for that claim. The judgment states that the Claimant is responsible for any tax or national insurance contributions due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found the redundancy pay claim well founded and ordered payment of £8,371.88 gross. | Upheld | — | £8,372 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found the unpaid balance of notice pay claim well founded and ordered payment of £3,562.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,563 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the claim for accrued unpaid annual leave well founded; the judgment also states this was considered to be an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. The Tribunal ordered payment of £712.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £713 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,647
- 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.