Case 1303343/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Hunton v Uttoxeter Veterinary Practice Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1303343/2024
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Hunton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Sophie Hunton was employed by Uttoxeter Veterinary Practice Limited as a registered veterinary nurse from 30 May 2022 until 29 February 2024. Employment Judge Walker, sitting alone at Birmingham on 29-30 May 2025, dismissed her unfair dismissal claim, which had been advanced as automatic unfair dismissal under Part X ERA 1996 for asserting a statutory right. The respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract concerning lunch breaks and unreturned uniform was withdrawn on the morning of the first day of hearing and dismissed on withdrawal.
The judge found that the claimant's breach of contract claim succeeded: contractual wages and holiday pay due in February 2024 were not paid by the due dates, and the respondent did not dispute that the late payment in itself was a breach, although a correcting payment was made in September 2024. The claim concerning itemised pay statements under section 8 ERA 1996 succeeded in part: while pay slips left in the prep room and, from October 2022, sent by email satisfied the section 8 duty generally, the claimant received her pay statements after payment was made for the February 2023 and November 2023 pay periods, and she was entitled to a declaration to that effect.
On the section 1 ERA 1996 written statement of particulars, the judge preferred the claimant's evidence and found she did not receive her contract of employment until 1 March 2024. Although the respondent had been in breach of section 1, the breach was no longer continuing when the ET1 was presented on 20 March 2024, so the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to make a financial award under section 38 Employment Act 2002. Remedy on the breach of contract claim was adjourned to a separate listed hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant alleged automatically unfair dismissal under Part X ERA 1996 by reason of asserting a statutory right. Claim found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Late payment of wages and holiday pay due in February 2024. Respondent made a correcting payment in September 2024 but did not dispute that late payment was a breach. Remedy to be determined at a separate listed remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Section 8 ERA 1996 failure to provide itemised pay statements. Tribunal found respondent failed to give itemised pay statements for pay periods February 2023 and November 2023; claimant entitled to a declaration. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Section 1 ERA 1996 written statement of particulars of employment. Tribunal found the respondent had breached its obligation to provide a written statement within the statutory timeline but the breach was not continuing at the date the ET1 was presented (20 March 2024), so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make a financial award under s.38 Employment Act 2002. No monetary remedy; declaration aspect addressed in findings. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 12(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.