Case 3202456/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Batchelor v Little Robins Nursery & Preschool Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202456/2023
- Decision date
- 15 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Park Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Batchelor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 15 April 2024 before Employment Judge S Park, recorded that the correct respondent was Little Robins Nursery & Preschool Ltd. The claimant, Miss Z Batchelor, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend.
All three claims succeeded. The tribunal held that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages for the days worked in October 2023 was well founded and awarded £749.98 gross. It also held that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages for three days' overtime was well founded and awarded £321.42 gross.
The tribunal further found that the holiday pay claim was well founded and awarded £501.44 gross. The judgment records no separate findings on interest or other remedy components, and the total sum awarded on the face of the judgment is £1,572.84 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unlawful deduction of wages in respect of the days worked in October 2023 was well founded and ordered payment of £749.98 gross. | Upheld | — | £750 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unlawful deduction of wages in respect of three days' overtime was well founded and ordered payment of £321.42 gross. | Upheld | — | £321 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim was well founded and ordered payment of £501.44 gross. | Upheld | — | £501 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,573
- 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.