Case 2408313/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Pakstaite v Coco’s Café (NW) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408313/2021
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Pakstaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal recorded that the time for presenting a response had expired and that the respondent had not presented a valid response within the prescribed time limit. On that basis, the tribunal determined the claim on the papers without a hearing and cancelled the hearing listed for 25 November 2021.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered Coco's Cafe (NW) Limited to pay Miss M Pakstaite £2,140.63, gross, subject to the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance, if any, for which the respondent had to account to HMRC. The attached interest notice stated that interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award remained unpaid 14 days after the judgment was sent, with 4 November 2021 identified as the relevant judgment day and 8% as the stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response within the prescribed time limit. | Upheld | — | £2,141 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,141
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.