Case 1600310/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Young v Regal Holidays (UK) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600310/2023
- Decision date
- 1 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's holiday pay complaint was well-founded. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays that had accrued but not been taken when employment ended. The tribunal ordered payment of £897.75, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
On redundancy, the tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,842.88. It also ordered the respondent to pay £4,837.63 to compensate for financial loss attributable to the failure to pay that redundancy payment. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded and held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but untaken when employment ended. | Upheld | — | £898 |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,842.88 and ordered a further £4,837.63 to compensate for financial loss attributable to non-payment of that redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £7,681 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,578
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,843
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,838
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 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.