Case 3200478/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Berry v Laindon Community Trading Company Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200478/2021
- Decision date
- 6 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Berry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 6 August 2021 at the East London Hearing Centre, Employment Judge S Knight noted that the respondent, Laindon Community Trading Company Ltd, was not in attendance and was unrepresented. The tribunal amended the respondent’s name and extended time for the holiday pay and notice pay claims to the date the ET1 was filed.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in respect of holiday pay, that the claimant was owed notice pay, and that she was owed a redundancy payment. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,053.28 for holiday pay, £3,200.70 for notice pay, and £3,200.70 for redundancy pay. The judgment records a total award of £7,545.68, although the listed components add up to £7,454.68.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay and extended time for that claim to the ET1 presentation date. | Upheld | — | £1,053 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was owed notice pay and extended time for that claim to the ET1 presentation date. | Upheld | — | £3,201 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was owed a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,201 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,546
- 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.