Case 2602444/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Edwards v JW Holdings (Worcester) Limited Heard: At Nottingham and by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602444/2021
- Decision date
- 2 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Edwards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the case by consent after recording that both parties had failed to comply with case management orders. The respondent accepted that the claimant had 9.5 days of annual leave outstanding at the date of termination, and the tribunal also recorded that the respondent would not pursue any alleged overpayments in the County Court or otherwise and would provide copies of past payslips to the claimant.
The claimant's claim for accrued holiday pay outstanding at termination succeeded. Judgment was entered for £582.90 in respect of that claim.
The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal, and the claim for failure to provide a written statement of pay was also dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal separately declined jurisdiction to determine the employer's contract claim because no breach of contract claim had been presented by the claimant, applying Read v Ryder [2019] ICR Digest D5.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted the claimant had 9.5 days annual leave outstanding at termination, and by consent judgment was entered for £582.90. | Upheld | — | £583 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim for failure to provide a written statement of pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £583
- 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.