Case 2504314/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Whistler v Cygnet Events Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504314/2019
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Whistler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Whistler was employed by Cygnet Events Ltd as a Programme Manager from 5 September 2018 until 28 August 2019, when she resigned because her salary had not been paid. The tribunal found that at the end of the employment she was owed unpaid wages for July and August 2019 totalling £4,332 gross, together with £1,635.80 for accrued but untaken holiday pay.
The judgment was issued under rule 21 because the respondent had not presented a response. The case had been listed with other linked claims to resolve the correct identity of the employer, and Mr Maurice Duffy attended and confirmed that none of the sums claimed was in dispute and that Ms Whistler had been employed by Cygnet Events Ltd. The tribunal therefore amended the respondent name back to Cygnet Events Ltd and was satisfied it had enough material to determine the claims.
Both claims were found well founded and succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £4,332 for unlawful deduction from wages and £1,635.80 for the Working Time Regulations holiday pay complaint, making a total award of £5,967.80.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay for July and August 2019; the tribunal recorded £2,166 gross for each month. | Upheld | — | £4,332 |
| Working time regulations | Complaint for accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £1,636 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,968
- 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.