Case 2408301/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Murray v AEGC Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408301/2022
- Decision date
- 19 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms S Murray
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms S Murray, pursued a claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay against AEGC Ltd and Kate Hetherington T/A SP Catering. At the hearing on 6 September 2023, before Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone, the second respondent conceded that the claimant was owed holiday pay.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay was well-founded. The second respondent was ordered to pay £210 gross, subject to lawful deductions of tax and national insurance.
The written judgment also included the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating the relevant decision day as 18 September 2023, the calculation day as 19 September 2023, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%. No separate 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 | The second respondent conceded that the claimant was owed holiday pay; the tribunal therefore found the unpaid accrued holiday pay claim well-founded and ordered payment of £210 gross less lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £210 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £210
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.