Case 3203822/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Tucker v Mr Stuart Logan t/a The Academy of Professional Celebrants and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203822/2022
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo Response had been presented by any respondent, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 and decided the claims on the basis of the claimant's oral and written evidence and a 43-page hearing bundle. The hearing took place by telephone on 31 October 2022 before Employment Judge B Elgot.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unpaid wages against the first and second respondents and ordered them to pay two months' unpaid salary of £2,054.96 gross, on a joint and several basis. It also upheld the claim for accrued and unpaid holiday pay against those respondents and awarded £331.95, representing seven days' holiday pay calculated from an annual salary of £12,329.76 and a daily rate of £47.42 for a five-day week.
The claim for notice pay also succeeded against the first and second respondents. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 4 April 2022 without notice and awarded one week's notice pay of £237.11 gross. All claims against the third respondent were dismissed because it was not the claimant's employer.
On costs, the tribunal accepted the claimant's application under Rules 74-79 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. It found that all three respondents had acted vexatiously and unreasonably by failing to respond to correspondence, the tribunal, or the claim proceedings, and ordered them to pay the claimant's legal costs of £813 on a joint and several basis. The tribunal recorded a total of £2,624.02 payable by the first and second respondents for the substantive awards, with the £813 costs award payable in addition.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21. Succeeded against the first and second respondents; all claims against the third respondent were dismissed because it was not the employer. | Upheld | — | £2,055 |
| Holiday pay | Default judgment under Rule 21. Succeeded against the first and second respondents; all claims against the third respondent were dismissed because it was not the employer. | Upheld | — | £332 |
| Breach of contract | Default judgment under Rule 21. The notice pay claim succeeded against the first and second respondents after dismissal on 4 April 2022 without notice; all claims against the third respondent were dismissed because it was not the employer. | Upheld | — | £237 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,437
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rules 74-79 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.