Case 3321255/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms U Delpino-Mark, Solicitor For the v Mr K Ubah, Officer of the Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321255/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms U Delpino-Mark, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a CVP full merits hearing before Employment Judge K J Palmer at Bury St Edmunds on 18 November 2020, the Tribunal determined two claims brought by Ms Mathy Jorine Matondo against Kingsland Nursery Limited. The Claimant's claim for unlawful deduction of wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed.
The Claimant's claim for a payment in lieu of accrued untaken holiday at termination of employment under the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded, and she was awarded £435.80. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £435.80.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record therefore does not set out the Tribunal's reasoning on either claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal recorded that the Claimant's claim of unlawful deduction of wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 fails. No reasoning given in the written record; oral reasons were given at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for a payment in lieu of accrued untaken holiday at termination of employment under the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded. Awarded £435.80. | Upheld | — | £436 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £436
- 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.
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.