Case 2205528/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ms H Bird and Others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205528/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge Nicolle decided the claim on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and made a decision without a hearing.
The judge also added the 2nd and 3rd respondents as parties under Rule 34. That was because the claim form named only the 1st respondent, the employer was not identified in a contract of employment, the ACAS certificate and email/bank-payment records used different entity names, and Heather Bird was said to be the sole director and apparently the sole shareholder of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
On liability, the tribunal found that the respondents unlawfully failed to pay 7 days’ accrued holiday pay in the gross sum of £658 for the period 23 March 2020 to 20 June 2020. It also found a failure to pay one week’s statutory notice pay, assessed at £470 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondents failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Applying section 38(4)(b) of the Employment Act 2002, it awarded four weeks’ pay in the gross sum of £1,880. The respondents were ordered to pay the total gross sum of £3,008 and were held jointly and severally liable; the judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for applicable tax and employee national insurance contributions on gross payments.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay for 7 days accrued in the period 23 March 2020 to 20 June 2020. | Upheld | — | £658 |
| Breach of contract | One week’s statutory notice pay. | Upheld | — | £470 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment under s.1 ERA 1996; award made under s.38(4)(b) Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,008
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38(4)(b) Employment Act 2002
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.