Case 2403465/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Georgia Kaye Berry v PollenPay UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403465/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Georgia Kaye Berry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Leach found that PollenPay UK Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Miss Georgia Kaye Berry's wages by failing to pay her salary for March 2023 and April 2023. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £9,757.48 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay untaken holiday entitlement that had accrued as at the date of termination of the claimant's employment on 31 March 2023. It ordered payment of £2,257.48 gross for that holiday pay entitlement.
The judgment records that the hearing listed for 26 May 2023 was cancelled and that the decision was sent to the parties on 23 May 2023. The total gross award on the face of the judgment was £12,014.96. The accompanying interest notice states that the relevant decision day was 23 May 2023, the calculation day was 24 May 2023, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum, but no separate interest figure was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £9,757 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,257 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,015
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.