Case 1307642/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A James v University of Warwick — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307642/2023
- Decision date
- 13 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing by CVP at Midlands (West), Birmingham Tribunal on 13 March 2024, Mr A James did not attend and the University of Warwick was represented by Mr Edwards of counsel. Employment Judge Childe recorded judgment on complaints concerning alleged failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday.
The Tribunal struck out the complaints brought under the Working Time Regulations 1998, as unlawful deduction from wages under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and as breach of contract. The stated grounds were Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a), because the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, and Rule 37(1)(d), because they had not been actively pursued. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes complaints of failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday brought under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The holiday pay complaint was also brought as an unlawful deduction from wages claim under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The holiday pay complaint was also brought as a breach of contract claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.