Case 2500930/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Zoe Thompson v BX Corp Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500930/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Zoe Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningZoe Thompson presented a claim on 18 July 2022 for failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations. The claim was served on BX Corp Ltd at its registered office, but no response was served by the response date of 16 September 2022.
Applying Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the Employment Judge considered whether there was sufficient material to determine the claim on the papers. The tribunal recorded that Ms Thompson had started work for the respondent as a nail technician on 25 October 2021, working 40 hours per week at £9.50 per hour, and that her employment ended on 27 May 2022.
The tribunal accepted her holiday calculation using the government holiday calculator. It found that, as at termination, she had accrued 132 hours of holiday, had taken 25.5 hours, and therefore had 106.5 hours accrued but unpaid at £9.50 per hour. On that basis, the tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well founded and ordered BX Corp Ltd to pay £1,011.75 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Complaint under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations for accrued but untaken holiday pay. The tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment because no response was served. | Upheld | — | £1,012 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,012
- 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.