Case 2203867/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ixia Flowers Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203867/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3, and Employment Judge E Burns determined the claim under rule 21 without a hearing. The claimant, Miss H Gwyer, had been employed as a Senior Florist from 1 March 2022. She presented her claim form on 13 June 2022 after early conciliation from 9 May to 13 June 2022, stating that she had not been paid wages for April 2022 or holiday pay.
The judgment records that the tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages for April 2022, notice pay and holiday pay. The order does not separately explain contested evidence, because the matter was decided on the papers in the absence of a response from the respondent.
The tribunal ordered payment of £2,240 for one month’s pay, calculated on 40 hours per week at £14 per hour for four weeks, £560 for one week’s notice pay, and £560 for one week’s holiday pay accrued during her two months’ employment. The total award was £3,360 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, payable within 14 days. The hearing listed for 25 August 2022 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as 1 month’s pay for April 2022; the judgment says the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages for that month. | Upheld | — | £2,240 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as 1 week’s notice pay. | Upheld | — | £560 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as 1 week’s holiday pay accrued during about 2 months’ employment. | Upheld | — | £560 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,360
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21
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.