Case 6003087/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Emma Chivers v Leading Property Consultancy Ltd Heard: BY CVP (audio only) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003087/2025
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Emma Chivers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a holiday pay claim brought by Emma Chivers against Leading Property Consultancy Ltd. The claim was presented in time, but the respondent did not file a response by the return date. The respondent later sought a postponement and then an extension of time to present its response, relying on difficulty accessing its registered office. Employment Judge JM Wade refused the extension application, finding that no good reason had been provided for the company's failure to respond on time and that the grounds of resistance were misconceived.
The tribunal then proceeded under Rule 22 on the material available. It found that the claimant's complaint for unpaid holiday pay on termination of employment succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £430.38.
The judgment records that cameras were switched off as a reasonable adjustment and that the claimant referred to autism. No discrimination claim was determined, and no split of the award into separate heads was given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim was for unpaid holiday pay on termination of employment. The respondent's application to extend time for presenting the response was refused, and a Rule 22 judgment was entered. | Upheld | — | £430 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £430
- 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.