Case 6019069/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Silberrad v Fence Retail Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019069/2024
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Silberrad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Silberrad presented her claim in the South East Employment Tribunal on 27 November 2024. The respondent, Fence Retail LTD, failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay Miss Silberrad £94.87.
The judgment records a total award of £94.87 and does not separately allocate the sum between different heads of loss. No discrimination or dismissal findings are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge made a determination under rule 22. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £94.87. | Upheld | — | £95 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £95
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.