Case 1301980/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Barnaby Galiffe v Urban Sports Fitness Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1301980/2022
- Decision date
- 23 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Date
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Barnaby Galiffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Barnaby Galiffe worked for Urban Sports Fitness Limited from 30 September 2018 until 23 December 2021. The tribunal found the respondent's record keeping was poor, accepted the claimant's evidence about his hours and rejected Mr Noel Smith's explanations based on changing rotas, staff swaps, training fees, purchases, and alleged voluntary or furlough arrangements. It also found that no written statement of employment particulars had been provided and that no payslips were provided during the employment.
On wages, the tribunal accepted a course of underpayment from July 2020 to the end of employment and held that the claim was in time because, without contracts or payslips, the claimant could not reasonably calculate what should have been paid. It awarded £1,621.30 for unlawful deductions from wages. On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that on termination the claimant had accrued 22 days, had been paid for 6.3 days, and was entitled to 15.7 untaken days at £8.91 per hour, producing an award of £1,396.15 after credit for £450 already paid.
The tribunal rejected the separate holiday pay claim covering 2020 and unpaid holiday taken as out of time, and said it had no jurisdiction to deal with the agreed payment-in-lieu arrangement as presented. It also found that the failure to provide a statement of particulars justified the maximum four weeks' pay award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, assessed at £1,318.68. Although it found that payslips had not been provided, it made no further award because no additional deductions had been shown. The total award was £4,336.13.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted a series of underpayments from July 2020 to termination and rejected the respondent's alternative explanations based on rotas, training fees, purchases and furlough. | Upheld | — | £1,621 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay on termination for 2021 was made out; the tribunal accepted 15.7 days untaken holiday at £8.91 per hour, less £450 already paid. | Upheld | — | £1,396 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars was found, and the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay at the minimum wage under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,319 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim covering 2020 and unpaid holiday taken was held out of time, and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to make an award on the agreed payment-in-lieu arrangement as presented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found no payslips had been provided, but made no further award because no additional unlawful deductions had been shown. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,336
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- not reasonably practicable
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.