Case 1300327/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sonara Hoque and v David Wood Bakery Limited SITTING AT: Birmingham — 2024
- Case reference
- 1300327/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Smart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sonara Hoque and
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 December 2024, sitting alone, Employment Judge G Smart heard the Respondent's applications in a case brought by Ms Sonara Hoque against David Wood Bakery Limited. The Tribunal granted the Respondent's application to strike out the complaint under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, which concerned insufficient notice under Regulation 15 before annual leave was instructed to be taken. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint, so it was struck out.
The Tribunal refused the Respondent's application to strike out, or alternatively for a deposit order in relation to, the unlawful deductions of wages claim. The Judge stated that there were legal and factual issues that were not straightforward and that a trial was needed to hear the evidence. No final determination was made on that claim at this hearing.
The case was listed for the earliest trial date with associated case management orders. The written reasons were not provided in the decision, as the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The Respondent's application to strike out the complaint under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was granted. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint that insufficient notice was provided under Regulation 15 before annual leave was instructed to be taken. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent's application to strike out, or alternatively for a deposit order in relation to, the unlawful deductions of wages claim was refused. The Tribunal said there were legal and factual issues that were not straightforward and that a trial was needed to hear the evidence. | Other | — | — |
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.