Case 3202909/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Harriette v Love Language Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202909/2019
- Decision date
- 27 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Harriette
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined by Employment Judge Burgher at East London Hearing Centre on 27 April 2020 as a default judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Respondent had not presented a response, and neither party attended the telephone preliminary hearing. The judgment records that the Claimant had worked for the Respondent for about four months as a Finance Administrator.
In her ET1, the Claimant stated that the Respondent owed her £677.10, described as two weeks' full pay for agreed notice. Although she also ticked boxes for holiday pay and other payments, no particulars were given for those matters. The tribunal therefore issued default judgment only for the specified claim that was clearly quantified.
The Respondent was ordered to pay £677.10. The reasons say this was proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective, taking account of fairness, the avoidance of delay, and saving expense and Tribunal resources.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 21. The judgment records that the Claimant's specified claim for £677.10 in respect of 2 weeks' notice succeeded. | Upheld | — | £677 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £677
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.