Case 2405896/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Jenna Broadie v Angels@homecic — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405896/2019
- Decision date
- 5 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jenna Broadie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued because the respondent had not lodged a response. On the information available, Employment Judge Hoey determined that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the full holiday pay due to her on termination of employment. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £256 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was therefore entitled to a redundancy payment. The award for that claim was £768, described in the judgment as 6 weeks' pay. The written judgment did not set out any separate basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings award.
The accompanying notice explained that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest if not paid within 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties, with the stipulated rate stated as 8%. The judgment text did not calculate any interest figure, so no interest amount is recorded here.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the full amount of holiday pay due on termination and ordered payment of £256 gross. | Upheld | — | £256 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £768, described as 6 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £768 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,024
- 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.