Case 3306707/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Young v And Bicester Builders Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306707/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response within the time permitted by the tribunal rules. Employment Judge Anstis therefore determined the claim in the claimant's favour without a contested hearing.
On the face of the judgment, Ms K Young was found to be owed unpaid holiday and/or notice pay, and the tribunal awarded her £960 in compensation, subject to deduction of tax. The judgment does not split that sum between holiday pay and notice pay, and it does not record any separate findings beyond the default judgment in the claimant's favour.
The listed hearing on 15 January 2020 was cancelled. No other remedy components or legal tests were recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment says the claimant was owed unpaid holiday and/or notice pay and awards a single combined sum of £960, subject to deduction of tax. The award is not apportioned between the holiday pay and notice pay elements. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says the claimant was owed unpaid holiday and/or notice pay and awards a single combined sum of £960, subject to deduction of tax. The award is not apportioned between the holiday pay and notice pay elements. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £960
- 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.