Case 2502063/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C O’Keeffe v Tippy Tappy Toe Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502063/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C O’Keeffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C O’Keeffe brought claims against Tippy Tappy Toe Limited for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. Employment Judge Loy, sitting alone at Newcastle by CVP on 12 March 2023, held that each of the claimant’s monetary claims was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal recorded that the unpaid wages element covered one week’s pay 'in hand', unpaid service charges, and unpaid additional 'service charges'. Those items were accepted in the amounts agreed for remedy purposes: £480.77 for one week’s pay, £123.00 for service charges, and £300.00 for additional service charges.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unpaid holiday pay in the agreed sum of £180.00. No discrimination, dismissal, redundancy, or other non-monetary claim was recorded in the judgment.
On remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the total gross sum of £1,083.77, being the sum of the four successful heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for one week’s pay 'in hand' was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £481 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid service charges was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £123 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid additional 'service charges' was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £300 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £180 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,084
- 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.