Case 1600311/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Williams v Regal Holidays (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600311/2023
- Decision date
- 1 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with two claims under Rule 21. It found the holiday pay complaint well-founded because the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date his employment ended, and it ordered payment of £897.75. The claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum.
On the redundancy issue, the tribunal held under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,842.88. It also ordered a further £2,842.88 to compensate the claimant for financial loss attributable to the respondent's failure to pay the redundancy payment. The written judgment was sent to the parties on 1 November 2023.
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 because the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended. It ordered payment of £897.75, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | 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. It also ordered a further £2,842.88 to compensate the claimant for financial loss attributable to the respondent's failure to pay that redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,686 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,584
- across all upheld claims
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.