Case 2203188/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Perrin v v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203188/2020
- Decision date
- 8 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Perrin v
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent, which went into administration on 15 April 2020. She brought claims including a protective award, holiday pay and notice pay. The respondent did not contest the protective award claim, and judgment for that award had already been issued on 28 January 2022.
At a video hearing on 18 July 2022, the tribunal considered the remaining pay claims. The claimant did not attend and was not represented, but the tribunal accepted the information in her claim form that she was entitled to pay in lieu of 1.5 days' untaken holiday.
The tribunal also accepted that the claimant was entitled to four weeks' notice and had not been given notice or pay in lieu. After taking account of a capped payment made by the Redundancy Payments Service, the tribunal found that she was due pay in lieu of two weeks' notice and ordered the respondent to pay the stated gross sums for holiday pay and notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as pay for 1.5 days of untaken holiday after a capped payment by the Redundancy Payments Service. | Upheld | — | £115 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as damages for breach of notice, being pay in lieu of 2 weeks' notice after a capped payment by the Redundancy Payments Service. | Upheld | — | £767 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £883
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – rule 47
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.