Case 2401446/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K White Mrs J Stennings v Mrs Melanie A Shaw — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401446/2022
- Decision date
- 8 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K White Mrs J Stennings
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Slater therefore decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 without the need for the listed hearing on 9 June 2022.
On the claims brought by Miss K White and Mrs J Stennings, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay each claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay Miss K White £850.87 gross and Mrs J Stennings £1,132.94 gross.
The judgment also recorded the usual notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest would apply if the sums were not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day. No separate interest amount was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Applying rule 21, the tribunal found the first claimant’s holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered payment of £850.87 gross. | Upheld | — | £851 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Applying rule 21, the tribunal found the second claimant’s holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered payment of £1,132.94 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,133 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,984
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.