Case 1602378/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Llio Mai Jones v Seiont Manor Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602378/2019
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Llio Mai Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brace gave judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013 in the absence of an ET3 response form from Seiont Manor Limited. The judgment states that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination.
The tribunal upheld Ms Llio Mai Jones's claims for unpaid wages, holiday pay and notice pay. It awarded unpaid wages of £3,085.05 gross, holiday pay of £885.97 gross and notice pay of £1,534.12 net, giving a total award of £5,505.14.
The judgment recorded that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. No basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings award or interest was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment describes this as unpaid wages gross. | Upheld | — | £3,085 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment describes this as holiday pay gross. | Upheld | — | £886 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment describes this as notice pay net; classified as wrongful dismissal because the locked taxonomy has no separate notice pay category. | Upheld | — | £1,534 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,505
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013
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.