Case 2402762/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Rhodes v Carlisle Bathroom Centre Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402762/2021
- Decision date
- 24 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Rhodes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss C Rhodes was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 from 22 January 2020 until 12 February 2021. It also found that she was not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) ERA 1996.
Because she was a worker, the tribunal found she was entitled to holiday pay for the period she worked for the respondent. It ordered Carlisle Bathroom Centre Limited to make a payment in lieu of four weeks accrued but untaken holiday in the sum of £1,600 within 14 days of the judgment.
The judgment was given orally at the hearing, so written reasons were not provided. The accompanying notice stated that if the sum was not paid within 14 days, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate shown in the notice, but no separate interest figure was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that Miss C Rhodes was a worker within the meaning of s.230(3) ERA 1996 from 22 January 2020 until 12 February 2021, but not an employee within s.230(1) ERA 1996, and on that basis found she was entitled to holiday pay for the period worked. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- 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.