Case 2502171/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Nicola Ford v Andrea Ponting t/a Number 9 Bistro — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502171/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nicola Ford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNicola Ford was employed by Andrea Ponting t/a Number 9 Bistro from 13 January 2020 to 2 August 2020 as a Chef de Partie. She brought a claim presented on 26 November 2020 for outstanding holiday pay on termination of employment. No response was presented by the Respondent, and the tribunal proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal relied on information provided after contact with the Claimant’s accountant about holiday accrued as at 21 July 2020. It found that the Claimant had accrued 157.64 hours by that date and 166.91 hours by termination, had taken no holiday during her employment, and had been paid only for 138.44 hours on her final payslip. That left a shortfall of 28.47 hours at £10 per hour.
The tribunal held that the Claimant should have been paid £284.70 for the unpaid holiday balance and was satisfied on the available material that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing. It declined to make any award for postage or time spent bringing the claim, and it also declined to award compensation because it had no power to do so in relation to this complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment described the complaint as unlawful deductions in respect of accrued and unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal found 28.47 hours remained unpaid at £10 per hour, producing the award of £284.70. | Upheld | — | £285 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £285
- 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.