Case 1601544/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. B. Messenger v Epayme Ltd HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601544/2020
- Decision date
- 1 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. B. Messenger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs. B. Messenger brought claims against ePayMe Ltd for breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages, and unpaid holiday pay. The case was heard by Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan on 30 March 2021, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by its General Manager, Ms. L. Walsh.
The tribunal held that the respondent did not breach the claimant’s contract, make unauthorised deductions from her pay, or fail to pay holiday pay due for the period of 9 weeks from 3 July 2020 as claimed. All claims therefore failed and were dismissed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal rejected the claim for holiday pay said to be due for the period of 9 weeks from 3 July 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.