Case 2408321/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Adderley v ZM Inns Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408321/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Adderley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Phil Allen therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The written decision records no hearing evidence or further reasons beyond that default basis.
On the merits, the tribunal found that ZM Inns Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mrs J Adderley's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay her the gross sum of £5,815.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £3,306.50 in respect of that claim. The extract does not record any separate interest calculation or other monetary remedy beyond those two awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £5,815 gross. | Upheld | — | £5,815 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £3,306.50. | Upheld | — | £3,307 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,122
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.