Case 1800904/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Senosi v Unique Yorkshire Catering Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800904/2022
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Senosi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs L Senosi, brought a holiday pay claim against Unique Yorkshire Catering Services and stated in the ET1 that she was seeking £2,000. The respondent did not file an ET3 or take part in the proceedings. The hearing was listed for 28 April 2022 before Judge Sills at Leeds Employment Tribunal, and the claimant asked for a postponement the day before the hearing saying she could not attend because of her mental health.
The tribunal refused the postponement application. It noted that the claimant had previously failed to comply with directions requiring her to provide the respondent and the tribunal with a breakdown of what she said she was owed, how the sum had been calculated, and supporting documents, and that she had provided no medical evidence to support the asserted inability to attend. The tribunal then decided to determine the claim in her absence under Rule 47.
On the holiday pay claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not discharged the burden of showing that she was entitled to any award. It said there was no evidence of her pay rate, working hours, leave-year dates, or the number of holiday days taken, accrued, untaken, or carried forward, and that without those details it could not calculate any daily entitlement. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim, stating that the claimant had not established that she was due any holiday pay whether as a breach of contract, an unlawful deduction from wages, or under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal found she had not substantiated any entitlement because she did not provide her rate of pay, working hours, leave-year start date, days of holiday taken or untaken, any contractual carry-over basis, or supporting documents such as the contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 30A(2)
- Rule 47
- overriding objective
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.