Case 2416226/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Riley v Overton House Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416226/2018
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Riley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Riley, brought claims for breach of contract, unpaid wages, and unpaid untaken annual leave against Overton House Limited. The respondent filed no response and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal recorded that the claimant worked from 2 May 2018 to 7 September 2018, was paid at an hourly rate of £7.38, and worked an average of 42 hours per week.
The tribunal found all three claims well founded. It held that the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract and awarded her one week’s gross pay of £390.96. It also found an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £150 for August 2018. In addition, the tribunal found that at termination the claimant had accrued 9 days of annual leave and awarded £557.93 for that untaken leave.
The judgment states that the figures were calculated using the claimant’s hourly rate of pay and that the awards were to be paid gross of deductions, with the claimant responsible for her own tax and national insurance on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract and awarded one week’s gross pay. | Upheld | — | £391 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages for the period of August 2018. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Holiday pay | Award for 9 days of accrued but untaken annual leave at termination. | Upheld | — | £558 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,099
- 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.