Case 2600174/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Moore v Hannah M Bowen trading as Duke of Wellington — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600174/2022
- Decision date
- 24 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Moore
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 26 January 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Ayre determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On liability, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday pay and ordered payment of £862.25. It also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment did not fix the monetary award for the itemised pay statements claim. Instead, the hearing listed for 17 June 2022 was converted to a two-hour remedy hearing to decide what sum should be awarded under section 12(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of that failure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday pay and ordered payment of £862.25. | Upheld | — | £862 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay statements, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amount to award for that failure was left to a later remedy hearing under section 12(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £862
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.12(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.