Case 2302296/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Kaylee Arnold v Safi Care Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302296/2020
- Decision date
- 24 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swaffer Representation
- Venue
- ET London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kaylee Arnold
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningKaylee Arnold brought holiday pay claims against Safi Care Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The hearing was held at ET London South on 28 April 2022 before Employment Judge Swaffer Representation, and the respondent did not appear. The written record states that the tribunal rejected the holiday pay claims for 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 as not well founded.
The tribunal upheld the holiday pay claims for 2019-2020 and the further period recorded in the extracted text as '2020-201'. It ordered the respondent to pay £745.40 gross, subject to any relevant deductions for tax and national insurance. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claims for 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were found not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claims for 2019-2020 and a further period recorded in the extracted text as '2020-201' were found well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay £745.40 gross subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £745 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £745
- 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.