Case 6021897/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Aimee Marten v Novel Europe Management Services PM Limited (Previously CA Europe Management Services PM Limited) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021897/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aimee Marten
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Lewis determined the claim under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 after the Respondent failed to file an ET3. The Judge decided the matter could properly be determined on the papers without a hearing, and the listed hearing on 24 February 2025 was cancelled.
On the merits, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant notice pay in the net sum of £1,678.27, and had failed to pay holiday pay in the gross sum of £30.40. The judgment records a holiday pay calculation referencing 0.098 of a day at a daily gross rate of £192.30 producing £188.46, though the sum ordered for holiday pay is stated as £30.40.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £1,866.73.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded net under a Rule 22 determination after the Respondent failed to file an ET3. | Upheld | — | £1,678 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay awarded gross. Judgment shows calculation 0.098 days at a daily gross rate of £192.30 = £188.46, but the sum ordered for holiday pay is stated as £30.40; the figures in the judgment appear inconsistent on their face. | Upheld | — | £30 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,867
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.