Case 3311704/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Rooke v Change Hospitality Hub Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform Watford) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311704/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Rooke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the respondent did not attend. Employment Judge Davidson determined the case on the written record and found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages, ordering payment of £11.16.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £416.25. In a further finding, it held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's pension contributions and ordered payment of £96.07.
No separate basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings award, or interest was recorded in the judgment. The total monetary award reflected the three sums ordered, amounting to £523.48.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's pension contributions and ordered payment of £96.07. The judgment does not label this as a specific claim type within the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | £96 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £11.16. | Upheld | — | £11 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £416.25. | Upheld | — | £416 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £523
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.