Case 1800306/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A Rawson (2) Mr JL Burton (3) Mrs O Bell v Los Jefes Mexican Halifax Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800306/2022
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A Rawson (2) Mr JL Burton (3) Mrs O Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds by video on 29 March 2022 before Employment Judge Knowles. The Claimants were Mr A Rawson, Mr JL Burton and Mrs O Bell. The Respondent, Los Jefes Mexican Halifax Limited, did not attend.
The tribunal held that the Claimants' claims for holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and for breach of contract, described in the judgment as notice pay, were well founded and succeeded. No other claim outcomes are recorded in the judgment.
The tribunal ordered payment of gross holiday pay compensation of £1,842.76 to Mr Rawson, £1,232.00 to Mr Burton and £862.13 to Mrs Bell. It also ordered net damages for breach of contract of £462.92 to Mr Rawson, £368.62 to Mr Burton and £322.95 to Mrs Bell. The judgment records no further remedy, deduction, or separate costs or interest award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claims under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded. The judgment orders gross holiday pay compensation of £1,842.76 to Mr Rawson, £1,232.00 to Mr Burton, and £862.13 to Mrs Bell, together totalling £3,936.89. | Upheld | — | £3,937 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claims succeeded. The judgment orders net damages of £462.92 to Mr Rawson, £368.62 to Mr Burton, and £322.95 to Mrs Bell, together totalling £1,154.49. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,091
- 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.