Case 2414890/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Parr v Golden Egg Energy Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414890/2021
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Parr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson, sitting alone via CVP on 26 April 2022, found that the claimant's holiday pay claim was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £71.28. The judgment also found a separate unlawful deduction from wages claim well founded and ordered payment of £641.29 gross.
The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim, recording that it was not well founded. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The judgment record includes the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest may apply if the sums are not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, but it does not quantify any interest award in the judgment itself. The total monetary award recorded from the substantive orders is £712.57 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the holiday pay unlawful deduction claim was well founded and ordered payment of the gross sum of £71.28. | Upheld | — | £71 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the unlawful deduction from wages claim was well founded and ordered payment of the gross sum of £641.29. | Upheld | — | £641 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £713
- 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.