Case 1400352/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wooltorton & Mrs L Hopkins Gould v John Hitchins — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400352/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wooltorton & Mrs L Hopkins Gould
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. In Mr J Wooltorton’s case, the tribunal found the unpaid holiday pay claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £94.67. The judgment also recorded that the claimants’ remaining disability discrimination claims, if pursued, would require a further hearing.
In Mrs L Hopkins Gould’s case, the tribunal found the breach of contract claim in respect of notice well founded and awarded £157.50. It also found her unpaid holiday pay claim well founded and ordered £85.05, and found her unauthorised deductions from wages claim well founded and ordered £547 gross. The money ordered in the judgment therefore totalled £884.22 across the two claimants, with the remaining discrimination claims left for a later hearing if pursued.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Mr J Wooltorton: unpaid holiday pay was found well founded; the respondent was ordered to pay £94.67. | Upheld | — | £95 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs L Hopkins Gould: breach of contract in respect of notice was found well founded; damages of £157.50 were ordered. | Upheld | — | £158 |
| Holiday pay | Mrs L Hopkins Gould: unpaid holiday pay was found well founded; the respondent was ordered to pay £85.05. | Upheld | — | £85 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mrs L Hopkins Gould: unauthorised deductions from wages were found well founded; the respondent was ordered to pay £547 gross. | Upheld | — | £547 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £884
- 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.