Case 2501746/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Conroy v Stessa Leisure Holdings Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501746/2021
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Conroy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote audio hearing at Newcastle CFCTC on 19 January 2022, Employment Judge Arullendran amended the title of the respondent to Stessa Leisure Holdings Limited and deemed service to have been effected. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend.
The tribunal found Miss Conroy's claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deduction of wages to be well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,393.96, recorded as a gross award for which the claimant would be liable to the Inland Revenue for any tax and national insurance deductions.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for accrued and outstanding holiday pay, finding it was not well-founded. The total award recorded in the judgment was £1,393.96, and written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally and no request for written reasons was made at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as well-founded and awards a gross sum of £1,393.96. | Upheld | — | £1,394 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes the claim under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for accrued and outstanding holiday pay as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,394
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.