Case 3200155/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Ike v New Beginnings 16plus Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200155/2025
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Ike
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Moor determined the case under Rule 22 on the papers at a private video hearing on 18 December 2025; the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal found the complaint of untaken accrued holiday outstanding at termination to be well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £4,310.29, with the calculation appended to the judgment.
The tribunal also found the complaint of breach of contract concerning expenses the respondent had agreed to reimburse to be well-founded, ordering payment of £342.10. The claim of unlawful deduction of wages in relation to late salary and expenses was found not to be well-founded and did not succeed.
The total sum ordered to be paid to the claimant was £4,652.39. Written reasons were not provided as reasons were given orally at the hearing, subject to the standard 14-day request window. The PDF does not appear to address a whistleblowing or working time claim beyond the holiday pay determination.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Complaint of untaken accrued holiday outstanding at termination found well-founded under Rule 22 determination. Calculation appended covers accrual for 26 May 2023 – 31 March 2024 (£2,416.60) and 1 April 2024 – 1 December 2024 (£1,893.69); prior year's accrual included because claimant was not reminded or encouraged to take paid holiday. | Upheld | — | £4,310 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim of unlawful deduction of wages in relation to late salary and expenses not well-founded; did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint regarding expenses the Respondent had agreed to reimburse found well-founded. | Upheld | — | £342 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,652
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22
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.