Case 2207320/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Shirlee Gardiner v Farha Legal Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207320/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shirlee Gardiner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFarha Legal Ltd did not file a response. Employment Judge Goodman therefore determined the claim under rule 21 on the ET1 and the additional information supplied by the claimant, without a hearing. The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages of £1,266.00, notice pay of £4,533.83, holiday pay of £3,903.50, and redundancy pay of £4,282.50, and had failed to reimburse expenses contrary to contractual agreement in the sum of £198.24.
The claimant acknowledged receiving payments from the respondent totalling £4,150 on account of these sums. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £10,034.07 and to account to HMRC for tax and NI due on the awards for wages and holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful failure to pay wages. | Upheld | — | £1,266 |
| Breach of contract | Unlawful failure to pay notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,534 |
| Holiday pay | Unlawful failure to pay holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £3,904 |
| Redundancy | Unlawful failure to pay redundancy pay. | Upheld | — | £4,283 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to reimburse expenses contrary to contractual agreement. | Upheld | — | £198 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,034
- across all upheld claims
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.