Case 3200480/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Jenkins v Laindon Community Trading Company Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200480/2021
- Decision date
- 6 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Jenkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Jenkins’s case was heard at East London Hearing Centre on 6 August 2021 before Employment Judge S Knight. The respondent, Laindon Community Trading Company Ltd, did not attend and was unrepresented. The tribunal extended time for the claims relating to holiday pay and notice pay to the date the ET1 claim form was filed.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in respect of holiday pay. It also found that the claimant was owed notice pay and a redundancy payment. The judgment does not record any discrimination or dismissal findings.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £7,661.82, comprising £1,189.38 holiday pay, £3,236.22 notice pay, and £3,236.22 redundancy pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,189 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was owed notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,236 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was owed a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,236 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,662
- 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.