Case 2500180/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Hildreth v Lilly’s Cafe — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500180/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Hildreth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 22 April 2024 before Employment Judge Martin, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or have representation. The judgment records that the correct name of the respondent is Lilly's Cafe Ltd and states that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of breach of the Working Time Regulations, described in the judgment as holiday pay, was well founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £354.20 in respect of that complaint.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's complaint of a failure to provide itemised pay slips was well founded. The written judgment provided does not record any separate monetary award for that complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Complaint described in the judgment as breach of the Working Time Regulations (holiday pay). | Upheld | — | £354 |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide itemised pay slips. The written judgment finds it well founded but does not record a separate monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £354
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.