Case 3300324/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Hunter v HP Jung (Beaconsfield) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300324/2021
- Decision date
- 22 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 5 October 2021, Employment Judge Quill sitting alone issued a judgment by consent under Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The respondent, HP Jung (Beaconsfield) Ltd, was ordered to pay Ms J Hunter gross sums of £1,572 in lieu of unused holiday, £360 in lieu of notice, and £1,260 for salary prior up to the termination date.
The judgment states that the aggregate amount due was £3,192. It also records that the sums were expressed as gross figures, that PAYE should be deducted if applicable, and that the net amount should be paid to the claimant within 14 days.
The judgment contains no substantive merits findings, no contested liability reasoning, and no separate award of interest or other compensation. It records only the agreed disposal and the monetary terms of the consent order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Judgment by consent; ordered sum in lieu of unused holiday. | Settled | — | £1,572 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment by consent; ordered sum in lieu of notice. | Settled | — | £360 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment by consent; ordered sum for salary prior up to the termination date. | Settled | — | £1,260 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,192
- 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.