Case 3302597/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss H Barom v Pet Subjects Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 3302597/2020
Decision date: 25 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Vowles Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss H Barom

Respondent

Pet Subjects Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Pet Subjects Limited did not present a response to the claim, so judgment was entered under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 in favour of the Claimant, Miss H Barom. The tribunal recorded two successful money claims: unpaid holiday pay and unpaid wages.

For unpaid holiday pay, the tribunal found that the Claimant was owed holiday pay and awarded £337.50 in compensation. For unpaid wages, the tribunal found that the Claimant was owed wages and awarded £2,200 in compensation.

The judgment also records that pension contributions do not qualify as wages and that there was no power to award compensation for distress and false information. The total award was £2,537.50, which the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Claimant.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Holiday pay	Judgment under Rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a response. The tribunal found the Claimant was owed holiday pay and awarded £337.50 in compensation.	Upheld	—	£338
Unlawful deduction from wages	Judgment under Rule 21 after the Respondent failed to present a response. The tribunal found the Claimant was owed wages and awarded £2,200 in compensation. The judgment states that pension contributions do not qualify as wages and that there was no power to award compensation for distress and false information.	Upheld	—	£2,200

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,538; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.