Case 1302104/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Baker v Sixty Degrees Midlands Limited Heard: Midlands West (by Cloud Video Platform) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302104/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Baker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant’s complaint for accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent owed holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £18.70.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had breached its duty to give the claimant a written statement of employment particulars under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In respect of that breach, the tribunal ordered payment of £403.55, described in the judgment as two weeks’ pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The decision was given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time by a party. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Power sitting alone on 14 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded and ordered payment of the gross sum of £18.70. | Upheld | — | £19 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of its duty to give the claimant a written statement of employment particulars under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £403.55, described as two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £404 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £422
- 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.