Case 2414964/2021 · Employment Tribunal
L Braithwaite v Westmorland Hospitality Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414964/2021
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Braithwaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn L Braithwaite v Westmorland Hospitality Limited, the respondent failed to present a valid response. Employment Judge Batten decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the hearing listed for 6 July 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £663.75 gross, calculated as 73.75 hours at £9 per hour. It also upheld the claim for unpaid holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £276.30 gross, calculated as 30.7 statutory holiday hours at £9 per hour.
The attached interest notice stated that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if unpaid 14 days after the judgment was sent, with the relevant decision day given as 7 July 2022 and the calculation day as 8 July 2022. No separate quantified interest award was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response; ordered gross sum £663.75 (73.75 hours x £9). | Upheld | — | £664 |
| Holiday pay | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response; ordered gross sum £276.30 (30.7 statutory holiday hours x £9). | Upheld | — | £276 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £940
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.