Case 3314825/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Adams v Ascot Foods Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314825/2020
- Decision date
- 3 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Miss C Adams against Ascot Foods Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the minimum wage during the period 20 July 2020 to 2 August 2020, and it awarded £155.96 in respect of that claim. The tribunal recorded that the sum was a gross figure.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £355.37 for 5.1 days of accrued but untaken holiday, again recording the figure as gross. The tribunal noted that if the respondent pays any tax and national insurance due to HMRC on the payments, payment of the net amount will meet the judgment debt.
The judgment states that the tribunal did not have power to order compensation for loss of benefit arising from an accounting error by the respondent. No separate compensation, interest, or other remedy was recorded. The combined gross total of the two awards is £511.33.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages because the respondent failed to pay the minimum wage for the period 20 July 2020 to 2 August 2020. The figure recorded was gross. | Upheld | — | £156 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment for 5.1 days' accrued but untaken holiday. The figure recorded was gross. | Upheld | — | £355 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £511
- 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.