Case 2408322/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Adderley v ZM Inns Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408322/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Adderley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBecause the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, Employment Judge Phil Allen made a Rule 21 determination on the papers. The judgment records no contested evidence from the respondent. The tribunal found that ZM Inns Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Ms E Adderley's wages and ordered payment of £4,439.32 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Ms Adderley's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,755.80. The notice of interest states that interest would run under article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 from 21 February 2023 at 8% per annum, unless the sums were paid in full within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £4,439 |
| Holiday pay | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £2,756 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,195
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 12, 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.