Case 2413404/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Edwards v Il Cortile Restaurant — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413404/2020
- Decision date
- 26 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Edwards brought complaints of unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday entitlement. Employment Judge Batten sat alone at Manchester on 14 January 2021, and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement due on termination and ordered it to pay the claimant the gross sum of £157.50.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring such a claim. The judgment included the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, but no separate interest figure was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement due at termination and ordered payment of the gross sum of £157.50. | Upheld | — | £158 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £158
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 1996
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.