Case 2402709/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Parrott v Hillcrest Finance Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402709/2021
- Decision date
- 6 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Parrott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, so the matter was determined under Rule 21 on the information before Employment Judge Batten Date. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £14,100 gross. It also found that the claimant had incurred mortgage interest charges because the wages were not paid, and ordered the respondent to pay £541.94 in damages for that loss.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered holiday pay of £591.78 gross. The hearing listed for 15 October 2021 was cancelled. The bottom-line monetary awards in the judgment total £15,233.72.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £14,100 gross. It also ordered £541.94 in damages for mortgage interest charges said to have arisen because the wages were not paid. | Upheld | — | £14,642 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered holiday pay of £591.78 gross. | Upheld | — | £592 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,234
- 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.