Case 2301001/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C John v Island Grill Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301001/2022
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C John
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Wright Date proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers. The judgment was issued on 29 November 2022 and cancels the hearing listed for 29 March 2023.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered Island Grill Ltd to pay £1,038.46 in respect of that unpaid holiday entitlement.
The judgment also states that the claimant’s claim under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded in respect of her court summons and overdraft fees. The tribunal awarded £122.28 for that item. The total amount payable was £1,160.74.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £1,038.46. | Upheld | — | £1,038 |
| Other | The judgment records a successful claim under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of the claimant’s court summons and overdraft fees, and awards £122.28. This is mapped to other because the judgment does not identify a separate substantive claim type. | Upheld | — | £122 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,161
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.