Case 1602386/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Smith v Dan-Y-Craig Labour Club and Institute Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602386/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Cardiff hearing on 17 and 18 December 2020 before Employment Judge C Sharp sitting alone, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s sick pay claim following the claimant’s withdrawal of that claim. The judgment records no merits determination on sick pay beyond that procedural outcome.
The claimant’s holiday pay claim was found well founded on the respondent’s concession, and the parties agreed the outstanding sum due. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £235.88.
The claimant’s claim for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars was also conceded and found well founded, but remedy on that claim was left outstanding to be determined later with the unresolved unfair dismissal and wages claims, whose merits were not determined at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The sick pay claim was dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent conceded the holiday pay claim and the parties agreed the outstanding sum due. | Upheld | — | £236 |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars was conceded and found well founded, but remedy was left outstanding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £236
- across all upheld claims
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.