Case 3205579/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Paula Bolden v CIMH Essex Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205579/2022
- Decision date
- 24 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Paula Bolden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Paula Bolden brought claims against CIMH Essex Limited concerning deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay. At a hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 24 April 2023, Employment Judge C H O’Rourke heard the case by CVP. By consent, the respondent’s title was amended to CIMH Essex Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages and had failed to pay arrears of holiday pay. The judgment does not set out further findings of fact or a detailed reasons section, but it records both claims as established.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,159.28. The judgment does not break that figure down between the unlawful deductions claim and the holiday pay claim, and no separate interest or other remedy is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages. The judgment does not split the award between this issue and holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay arrears of holiday pay. The judgment does not give a separate figure for this element. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,159
- 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.