Case 2603501/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Red Ladybird Leisure Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603501/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a closed telephone preliminary hearing on 28 February 2022, Employment Judge Hutchinson sat alone and noted that the respondent did not appear. The respondent's response was struck out because it had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 16 November 2021 and had not been actively pursued.
The tribunal then determined the claimant's monetary claims. It found that the claimant had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,500. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £150 for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £180. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a statement of terms and conditions of employment and awarded £600 compensation. The total compensation payable was recorded as £2,430.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant his holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £180 |
| Other | The judgment states the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a statement of terms and conditions of employment. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,430
- 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.