Case 3204066/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Golding v Holland Properties Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204066/2022
- Decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Illing Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Golding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss T Golding brought claims against Holland Properties Ltd and the tribunal, sitting at East London Hearing Centre on 27 and 28 April 2023 before Employment Judge Illing, held that she was unfairly dismissed. The judgment also records that she did not contribute to her dismissal and that no Polkey reduction should apply.
The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code in relation to the dismissal, and directed that a 10% uplift should be applied. The extracted judgment does not set out any monetary award, and instead lists the matter for a remedy hearing.
On the pay claims, the tribunal held that the claim for commission at 10% failed, but the claim for commission for July and August 2021 succeeded. The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. No quantified remedies are recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that Miss T Golding was unfairly dismissed. It also found that she did not contribute to her dismissal and that no Polkey reduction should apply. The respondent was found to have failed to follow the ACAS Code in relation to the dismissal, and a 10% uplift was directed. The remedy hearing was left to determine the monetary consequences. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for commission at 10% failed. The extracted judgment does not give a quantified amount for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for commission for July and August 2021 succeeded. The extracted judgment does not quantify the sum awarded for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey reduction
- ACAS Code uplift
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.