Case 3308850/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Jayne Lee (Sister) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3308850/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Jayne Lee (Sister) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Graham recorded that a determination could properly be made on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,084 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday entitlement for the last year of employment and ordered payment of £945.98.
The claimant's further claim for holiday pay for the preceding year was refused. The tribunal said there was no evidence that the respondent prevented the claimant from taking her holiday.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Under rule 21, the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,084 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,084 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday entitlement for the last year of employment and ordered payment of £945.98. The separate claim for holiday pay for the preceding year was refused because there was no evidence that the respondent prevented the claimant from taking her holiday. | Upheld | — | £946 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,030
- 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.