Case 2203771/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Stacey Employment Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203771/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Joffe JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Budrisi brought claims against Stacey Employment Services Limited. The respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Joffe therefore decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing, and the hearing listed for 23 January 2020 was vacated.
The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and holiday pay to the claimant. It ordered the respondent to pay £558.92 in wages and £510 in accrued holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1999, making a total award of £1,068.92.
The tribunal also stated that it could not award compensation for distress and frustration because that did not represent financial loss sustained by the claimant as a result of the deductions from wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and ordered payment of £558.92. | Upheld | — | £559 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered £510 in accrued holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1999. | Upheld | — | £510 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,069
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1999
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.