Case 8000756/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Rixon v Stirling Care Home Ltd CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 In accordance with the power set out in — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000756/2024
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, so the Employment Judge issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that Stirling Care Home Ltd had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,274.63, calculated on the basis of 92.7 hours at £13.75 per hour. The judgment also provided that the respondent could deduct income tax and employee National Insurance Contributions, if required by law, before payment, provided the deducted sums were remitted to HMRC and evidence of the deductions was supplied to the claimant.
The hearing listed for 23 August 2024 was cancelled. A later certificate of correction amended the respondent name from 'Stirling Care Home' to 'Stirling Care Home Ltd' and recorded that the correction did not change appeal or reconsideration time limits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Default judgment under rule 21. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,274.63, calculated on 92.7 hours at £13.75 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,275 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,275
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.