Case 2404172/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Tyla Bell v Aztec Carlisle Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404172/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Carlisle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Tyla Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Tyla Bell brought claims against Aztec Carlisle Limited for unpaid holiday pay on termination and unauthorised deductions from wages. The hearing took place at Carlisle on 13 November 2023 before Employment Judge Humble, with the claimant appearing in person and no attendance for the respondent.
The tribunal upheld both claims. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued holiday pay on termination, which it recorded as 130.29 hours, and ordered payment of £1,693.77. It also found unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of 9 hours worked and ordered payment of £117.00.
The judgment records a total sum of £1,820.77, and the accompanying notice states that interest is governed by the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day given as 15 November 2023 and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum. The judgment does not set out any separate interest calculation in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay accrued holiday pay on termination, calculated as 130.29 hours. The written judgment states an award of £1,693.77 for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | £1,694 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of 9 hours worked. The written judgment states an award of £117.00 for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | £117 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,821
- 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.