Case 2419654/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Hollywell v Organic Insurance Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2419654/2020
- Decision date
- 2 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Hollywell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing held on 1 March 2021 before Employment Judge Shotter, the tribunal found that Mrs M Hollywell had suffered an unlawful deduction of wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered Organic Insurance Limited to pay £165.00 net for the underpayment in wages.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim for unpaid accrued holidays under the Working Time Regulations 1998. It found that 15 days of unpaid holiday were due and ordered the respondent to pay £1,366.35 net. The judgment records the total monetary outcome as the sum of those two awards, with no separate findings on injury to feelings, basic award, compensatory award, or interest included in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £165.00 net for the underpayment in wages. | Upheld | — | £165 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid accrued holidays under the Working Time Regulations 1998 to be well founded and ordered payment of £1,366.35 net for 15 days' unpaid holiday. | Upheld | — | £1,366 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,531
- 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.