Case 3334253/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Julian v Trixabelles Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3334253/2018
- Decision date
- 10 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Julian
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the case under Rule 21 because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. On the basis of the information before the tribunal, Miss J Julian's claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay succeeded, together with her claim for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.
The judgment did not quantify any compensation or other monetary award. Instead, it directed that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing at Cambridge Count Court, 197 East Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB1 1BA on Friday 10 May 2019 at 10:00am, with a time estimate of 1 hour.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records this as a claim for unpaid wages. It succeeded under Rule 21 and no monetary remedy was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records this as a claim for holiday pay. It succeeded under Rule 21 and the remedy was left for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records a claim for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment. It succeeded under Rule 21 and no award was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.