Case 2414065/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Chappelle-Molloy v Draft Beer Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414065/2021
- Decision date
- 10 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Chappelle-Molloy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 3 August 2022, Employment Judge Cookson sitting alone recorded that Miss T Chappelle-Molloy’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £574.75 gross was not disputed and was upheld. The tribunal also upheld her claim for unpaid holiday pay of £206.15 gross on the same basis.
The tribunal further held that the claimant was an employee and awarded her £190 gross as damages for breach of contract. No written reasons were issued beyond the oral judgment recorded in the written decision.
The judgment notice also stated that sums payable under the decision would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day. The written record gives the relevant judgment day as 10 August 2022, the calculation day as 11 August 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages of £574.75 gross was not disputed and was upheld. | Upheld | — | £575 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claim for unpaid holiday pay of £206.15 gross was not disputed and was upheld. | Upheld | — | £206 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was an employee and awarded £190 gross as damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £190 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £971
- 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.