Case 1406061/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Sinnett-Thomas v 1) Hillbrooke Hotels(Somerset)Ltd 2) The Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406061/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Sinnett-Thomas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against Hillbrooke Hotels (Somerset) Ltd, a company in voluntary liquidation, for unpaid wages, notice pay and holiday pay, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was joined to the proceedings. The claim against the Secretary of State was stayed because the claimant had not yet been able to make an application under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Dawson proceeded to determine the claim against the 1st respondent in the interests of justice, noting the claimant was entitled to bring the claim, the 1st respondent was not contesting it, and a claim against the Secretary of State could take many months to be heard.
On the central question of employment status, the tribunal found that the letter of 11 August 2022 describing the claimant as a seasonal worker without an employment contract did not properly reflect the relationship. Applying Autoclenz v Belcher, Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and related authorities, the judge concluded the claimant was engaged on a permanent contract with a minimum of 16 hours per week, was subject to the respondent's control, was provided with tools, equipment and a workspace by the respondent, could not substitute another worker, and was paid when absent due to holiday. The irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation was satisfied.
Accepting the claimant's evidence as to sums owed, the tribunal ordered the 1st respondent to pay £660 for 41.25 hours not worked (treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages), £272 as damages for breach of contract in respect of one week's notice pay under section 86 ERA 1996, and £79.66 in respect of holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the 1st respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of 41.25 hours not worked and ordered payment of the gross sum of £660. | Upheld | — | £660 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; tribunal found he was an employee and awarded one week's notice pay of £272 under s.86 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £272 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the 1st respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £79.66. | Upheld | — | £80 |
| Other | Claim against the 2nd respondent (Secretary of State for Business and Trade) was stayed pending the claimant making an application under s.182 ERA 1996; to be dismissed without further order if claimant does not contact the tribunal by 13 November 2024. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,012
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2011] IRLR 820
- Ter-Berg v Simply Smile Manor House Ltd and others [2023] EAT 2
- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 1 All ER 433
- Stephenson v Delphi Diesel Systems Ltd [2003] ICR 471
- Carmichael v National Power [2000] IRLR 43
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.182 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.