Case 2404626/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Fenney v 1) Irton Hall Ltd 2) Irton Hall Guest Accommodation Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404626/2019
- Decision date
- 9 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Fenney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response having been presented by either respondent, the tribunal dealt with the case on the information before the Employment Judge from the ET1 claim form and correspondence under Rule 21. It found that Mr P Fenney was employed by the first respondent, Irton Hall Ltd, and not by the second respondent, Irton Hall Guest Accommodation Ltd, which was described as a non-trading company.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. It accepted that the first respondent had made £600.00 in deductions and had failed to pay £554.00, making a total unpaid sum of £1,154.00 gross, which it ordered the first respondent to pay to the claimant.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unpaid holiday entitlement. It ordered the first respondent to pay £470.00 gross in respect of holiday pay. The hearing listed for 21 August 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; first respondent found liable for £600.00 deductions and £554.00 non-payment, totalling £1,154.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; first respondent found to have failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered to pay £470.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £470 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,624
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.