Case 2410455/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Latham v 1) Elletson Arms 2) Indigo Taverns Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410455/2019
- Decision date
- 28 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Latham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Batten recorded that Ms H Latham's claims succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered them to pay the gross sum of £294.48.
The tribunal also found that the respondents had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered them to pay £1,087.56. The judgment itself contains only these orders and does not set out fuller reasons or factual findings beyond the two successful monetary claims.
A separate notice attached to the judgment stated the relevant decision day as 28 April 2020, the calculation day as 29 April 2020, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if any sums remained unpaid after 14 days. The judgment did not quantify interest, so the award totals recorded here reflect the two sums expressly ordered in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £294.48. | Upheld | — | £294 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondents had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,087.56. | Upheld | — | £1,088 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,382
- 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.
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.