Case 2407626/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Jarvis-Dean v Delph Worsley Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2407626/2021
- Decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Jarvis-Dean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Robinson, sitting alone, heard the case remotely in Manchester on 17 August 2021. The tribunal declared that the claimant’s complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded, together with her complaint that the respondent had failed to pay accrued holiday pay when the working relationship ended.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £608 for unpaid wages and the net sum of £27 for unpaid holiday pay. The judgment records a total net sum of £635 payable forthwith. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that reasons would only be issued if requested in accordance with the tribunal’s note.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 complaint well-founded and ordered payment of the net sum of £608 for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £608 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal also found the complaint that accrued holiday pay had not been paid on termination well-founded and ordered payment of the net sum of £27. | Upheld | — | £27 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £635
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.