Case 1800348/2022 · Employment Tribunal
By telephone For the v Eds Best Convenience Value Food Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800348/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
By telephone For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for five weeks' holiday pay and notice pay after her employment ended on 29 January 2022, following her own notice to terminate. The judgment records that, during the notice period, she was not fit for work, claimed SSP, and that SSP was subsequently paid by HMRC, so no further notice pay was due.
The tribunal found that the claimant's holiday year ran from April to April, that she was entitled to 5.6 weeks' holiday per year, and that she had taken one week's leave from April 2021 while working for the previous owner. After the respondent took over, she took no further leave.
The tribunal calculated that 304 days of the holiday year had passed by termination, giving 4.66 weeks' accrued holiday. After deducting one week already taken, 3.66 weeks remained due. At gross weekly earnings of £435, the claimant was awarded £1,592.10 for accrued holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the holiday pay claim under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994 and Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 was upheld. It also records that no further payment was due in respect of notice pay because SSP had subsequently been paid by HMRC. | Upheld | — | £1,592 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,592
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994
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.