Case 6043599/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss V Onyango v Ladybirds Cleaning Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6043599/2025
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss V Onyango
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Wales Employment Tribunal on 26 November 2025. The respondent 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 and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £671.55. The total sum the respondent must pay is £671.55, with the claimant responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due.
The hearing listed for 20 April 2026 was cancelled. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Jenkins on 17 March 2026 and sent to the parties on 23 March 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Rule 22 determination following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. The judgment refers to unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £672 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £672
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.