Case 2410350/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Elizabeth Roylance v Oaktree Childcare Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410350/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Elizabeth Roylance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 22 March 2023, Tribunal Judge Abigail Holt sat alone and heard Miss Elizabeth Roylance's claim against Oaktree Childcare Limited. The respondent did not attend. On the ET1 and supporting evidence, the tribunal was satisfied that the claimant's claim for unpaid wages in breach of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was made out.
The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to unpaid wages, described as arrears of pay including overtime and training hours, in the sum of £793.80. The written record also included the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating the relevant decision day as 28 March 2023 and the calculation day as 29 March 2023, but no separate quantified interest award was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid wages in breach of section 13 ERA 1996 was made out on the ET1 and supporting evidence. The award covered arrears of pay including overtime and training hours. The respondent did not attend. | Upheld | — | £794 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £794
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.