Case 6009278/2025 · Employment Tribunal
P Baudains Smith v CHLancaster Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009278/2025
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
P Baudains Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The only complaint addressed in the judgment was holiday pay.
The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded. Its reason was that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay for holidays that had accrued but not been taken when the claimant's employment ended. The judgment does not record any dispute on the merits beyond that finding.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,196.48. It also stated that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance. The accompanying notice records that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day as 15 October 2025 and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum if the sum is not paid within 14 days, but no separate interest amount is set out in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes the complaint as one in respect of holiday pay and says the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended. | Upheld | — | £2,196 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,196
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.