Case 3311688/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Aujla v Riley Sports Bars 2014 Ltd (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3311688/2020
- Decision date
- 29 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Aujla
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs M Aujla’s claim against Riley Sports Bars 2014 Ltd (In Administration) was heard by video at Watford on 10 January 2022 before Employment Judge R Lewis. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not participate. The Administrator had given consent for the proceedings to continue by letter dated 29 December 2020.
The tribunal upheld the breach of contract claim because the respondent failed to give the claimant three months' notice under her contract of employment. It also upheld the claim relating to annual leave entitlement, finding that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in respect of that entitlement.
All other claims were dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £11,976.20 net, made up of £10,286.00 for notice pay and £1,690.20 for holiday pay after credit for sums recovered from the Insolvency Service.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The respondent failed to give the claimant three months' notice in accordance with her contract of employment; the award line described this as notice pay. | Upheld | — | £10,286 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant in respect of her entitlement to annual leave; the award line described this as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,690 |
| Other | The judgment dismisses all other claims but does not identify them individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,976
- 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.