Case 2405604/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Molenda v North West Linen Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405604/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Molenda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal proceeded without the respondent's response.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered North West Linen Services Limited to pay Mrs D Molenda £4,947.60, calculated as 520.8 hours at £9.50 per hour.
The tribunal also recorded that it could not make an award in respect of delayed payment as requested by the claimant. The separate notice on interest explained the tribunal's standard interest arrangements and stated the relevant decision day as 16 December 2022, but no interest sum was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 default judgment: the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £4,947.60, calculated as 520.8 hours x £9.50. The tribunal said it could not make an award in respect of delayed payment as requested by the claimant. | Upheld | — | £4,948 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,948
- 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.