Case 1600718/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Wilson v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600718/2023
- Decision date
- 29 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vernon Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the Respondent accepted the Claimant was entitled to payment for any accrued but untaken statutory annual leave and confirmed that the Claimant had been or would be paid the sums to which he was entitled.
The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the Claimant's notice pay complaint.
The Tribunal dismissed the holiday pay complaint to the extent it concerned accrued but untaken enhanced contractual leave. No written reasons were included in the judgment, and no monetary award was specified.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal pursuant to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as the Claimant's notice pay complaint, which failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Respondent accepted that the Claimant was entitled to be paid for accrued but untaken statutory annual leave and confirmed that such sums had been or would be paid. The holiday pay complaint insofar as it related to accrued but untaken enhanced contractual leave failed and was dismissed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 98 of the 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.