Case 1301009/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr S Hoyle, Consultant (Croner) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301009/2019
- Decision date
- 11 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Judgment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain it. The judgment records no further merits finding on that claim.
The claimant's holiday pay complaint was dismissed because she had failed to particularise her complaint about accrued and untaken holiday pay. The breach of contract complaint also did not succeed and was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made a limited number of unlawful deductions from pay. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the unlawfully deducted pay in the gross sum of £142.90.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant failed to particularise her complaint for failure to pay accrued and untaken holiday pay, and it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found a limited number of unlawful deductions from pay and ordered repayment of £142.90 gross. | Upheld | — | £143 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £143
- across all upheld claims
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.