Case 2300850/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Rae v M.S.Michael & Co. Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300850/2022
- Decision date
- 13 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Rae
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not enter a response to the claim, and Employment Judge Ferguson heard from the claimant at London South Employment Tribunal on 13 October 2022. Judgment was entered for Ms Rae.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,094.40. It also found that, when the proceedings were begun, the respondent was in breach of s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 because it had not given a written statement of initial employment particulars.
Because of that breach, the tribunal increased the award under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 by four weeks' pay, assessed at £547.20. The total amount ordered to be paid to the claimant was £1,641.60.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,094 |
| Other | The tribunal found that, when proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 by failing to give a written statement of initial employment particulars, and increased the award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 by four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £547 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,642
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 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.