Case 2301366/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Tay v R & F Properties QS (UK) Co., Ltd and 4 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301366/2021
- Decision date
- 29 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Ms C Tay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South, Employment Judge Dyal gave reserved judgment on 29 September 2023. By consent, the holiday pay claim succeeded in the sum of £1,248.85 plus £74.94 pension contributions, so the First Respondent was ordered to pay £1,323.79.
The notice pay claim succeeded in part only. The judgment records £516.67 plus £31.00 pension contributions, so the First Respondent was ordered to pay £547.67.
The judgment then states that the claims otherwise fail and are dismissed. The extracted text does not identify those remaining claims separately, so they are recorded here only as dismissed claims without further specification.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | By consent. The judgment records £1,248.85 holiday pay plus £74.94 pension contributions, making £1,323.79 payable by the First Respondent. | Upheld | — | £1,324 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay succeeds in part. The judgment records £516.67 plus £31.00 pension contributions, making £547.67 payable by the First Respondent. | Upheld | — | £548 |
| Other | The judgment states that the claims otherwise fail and are dismissed, but does not identify them individually in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,871
- 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.