Case 2405925/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Stacey Moore v Mr Gavin Reid t/a The Royal Hotel — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405925/2020
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Stacey Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Stacey Moore brought claims against Mr Gavin Reid t/a The Royal Hotel for unpaid notice pay, unpaid wages, redundancy payment and holiday pay. The tribunal, sitting at Manchester on 22 September 2021 before Employment Judge Michell, recorded that all four claims were well founded.
The written record does not set out detailed reasons, and it states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The decision therefore records the outcomes only, rather than a fuller analysis of the underlying facts or legal reasoning.
The tribunal awarded £642.40 for notice pay, £2,053.35 for unpaid wages, £1,052.28 for redundancy pay and £328.53 for holiday pay, making a total judgment sum of £4,076.56. A notice on interest was attached to the decision record under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest may accrue if the sum is not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid notice pay and awards £642.40. | Upheld | — | £642 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid wages and awards £2,053.35. | Upheld | — | £2,053 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim well founded and awarded £1,052.28. | Upheld | — | £1,052 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid holiday pay and awards £328.53. | Upheld | — | £329 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,077
- 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.