Case 2405643/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sarah Burton 1st v 2nd Respondent: Blue Inc Definition Retail Limited (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405643/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sarah Burton 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Sarah Burton brought claims against the first respondent and against Blue Inc Definition Retail Limited (in liquidation). The tribunal recorded that the claims against the first respondent were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. Her claim that the second respondent had not paid the correct rate of pay was found not well founded and was dismissed.
The claimant succeeded on her claim for unpaid holiday pay against the second respondent. The tribunal found that 7.5 days of holiday pay were due at a daily rate of £66.50, and ordered the second respondent to pay £498.75. The written judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any other heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s claims against the first respondent were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant’s allegation that she was not paid the correct rate of pay by the second respondent was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the unpaid holiday pay claim well founded and ordered payment of £498.75, representing 7½ days’ holiday pay at £66.50 per day. | Upheld | — | £499 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £499
- 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.