Case 3322895/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Stephens v Anglian Cleaning Solutions — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322895/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Stephens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was decided under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Laidler therefore determined the claim on the papers. The judgment records that the claimant, Miss C Stephens, had brought claims against Anglian Cleaning Solutions and that the tribunal was satisfied it could properly make a determination in accordance with the Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £683.10 net. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £270.18 net. The judgment does not set out any additional reasoning beyond those findings, and it does not separately identify any broader remedy calculation for the two sums.
The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £1,027.53 net in total. That total is recorded in the judgment as entered, although it does not match the arithmetic sum of the two itemised awards as extracted from paragraphs 2 and 3.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £683 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent must pay £1,027.53 net in total, which does not equal the sum of the two itemised awards (£953.28). | Upheld | — | £270 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,028
- 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.