Case 2207510/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Demi Rowley v Bark & Birch Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207510/2022
- Decision date
- 29 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Demi Rowley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 or Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Adkin therefore determined the matter under rule 21 without a hearing, relying on the details in the claim form. The hearing listed for 5 January 2023 was vacated.
On that basis, the Tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages of £2,295, notice pay of £2,295, holiday days pay of £1,115, and travel expenses of £469.22. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £6,174.22 in total, having accounted to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records unlawful failure to pay wages in this sum, with a gross figure of £2,917 noted in parentheses. | Upheld | — | £2,295 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded in this sum, with a gross figure of £2,917 noted in parentheses. | Upheld | — | £2,295 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records holiday days pay outstanding in this sum. | Upheld | — | £1,115 |
| Other | Travel expenses were awarded, but the judgment does not identify a separate legal label for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | £469 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,174
- 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.