Case 2501583/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Scott v Mrs Barts Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501583/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Scott presented her ET1 on 19 September 2022. The claim form was sent to Mrs Barts Limited on 3 October 2022, with a response due by 31 October 2022. No response was received, so the tribunal entered judgment without a hearing under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the hearing listed for 29 November 2022 was cancelled.
On liability, the tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages well-founded under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had said that 18 hours had not been paid at £10.25 per hour, and the tribunal ordered payment of £184.50.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay claim well-founded under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It accepted the claimant’s figure of 92.6 hours of accrued and outstanding holiday entitlement at £10.25 per hour, giving £949.15, and noted that the respondent had made a part payment of £750 on 30 September 2022. The balance ordered for holiday pay was £199.15, making a total award of £384.65.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well-founded under section 13 ERA 1996 and ordered payment of £184.50 for 18 hours' wages at £10.25 per hour. | Upheld | — | £185 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim well-founded under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of the balance after a £750 part payment. | Upheld | — | £199 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £385
- 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.