Case 2303303/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Rebecca Drewett v Rosemary Appleton Limited trading as Regency Properties — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303303/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Apted Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rebecca Drewett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRebecca Drewett brought claims against Rosemary Appleton Limited trading as Regency Properties. At the hearing in the London South Employment Tribunal on 16 December 2020, Employment Judge Apted allowed the claim for unpaid annual leave and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £763.42 gross.
The tribunal also allowed the claim for unpaid statutory sick pay and ordered payment of £150.80 net. The extracted judgment records the outcome and monetary orders only; it does not give written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not requested within the period stated in the decision.
On the material extracted text, there were no other claims, no discrimination issues, and no separate remedy components identified beyond the two sums ordered to be paid.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal allowed the claim for unpaid annual leave and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £763.42. | Upheld | — | £763 |
| Other | The tribunal allowed the claim for unpaid statutory sick pay and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the net sum of £150.80. The judgment does not place this claim into one of the schema's specific categories. | Upheld | — | £151 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £914
- 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.