Case 1405496/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Curtis (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 1405496/2020
Decision date: 3 December 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gray Dated

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr M Curtis (Counsel) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mr Joe Fowler was an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a worker within the meaning of regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. On that basis he was potentially owed holiday pay. However, the tribunal also found that he had not been dismissed, so his complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal failed and were dismissed.

Separately, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been provided with written particulars. It awarded him two weeks' pay, capped at £538 a week, which produced an award of £1,076.

In relation to holiday pay, the tribunal recorded that the amount was still to be determined after its status findings, and the parties then agreed that the tribunal should award £18,904. The judgment does not break that figure down further. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £19,980.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint failed and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed, so the wrongful dismissal complaint failed and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The tribunal found the claimant had not been provided with written particulars and awarded two weeks' pay, capped at £538 a week, totalling £1,076.	Upheld	—	£1,076
Holiday pay	The tribunal found the claimant was a worker for Working Time Regulations purposes and potentially owed holiday pay. The parties then agreed that the tribunal should award £18,904.	Settled	—	£18,904

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £19,980; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.