Case 1601088/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Palmer v Lilly’s Wholesale & Clearance Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601088/2021
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Palmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Cardiff, with Judge M Thomas sitting alone, heard the case on 1 April 2022. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and recorded the decision in writing on 4 April 2022.
The tribunal found that Lilly’s Wholesale & Clearance Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Miss Z Palmer’s wages in two respects. First, it failed to pay the full amount of wages due for the period from 7 June 2021 to 5 July 2021, and ordered payment of £1,523.60 gross. Second, it failed to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment, and ordered payment of £203.11 gross.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed: the tribunal found that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The judgment also records that the claimant was not entitled to compensation for financial loss arising as a result of the unauthorised deduction from wages findings. The bottom-line monetary award recorded in the decision is £1,726.71 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for failure to pay the full amount of wages due from 7 June 2021 to 5 July 2021. | Upheld | — | £1,524 |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction from wages for failure to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £203 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,727
- 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.