Case 1801310/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Body Doctor Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 1801310/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant’s employment had transferred to the respondent’s business and her most recent contract, signed on 16 April 2018, stated under “Incapacity for Work” that if she was unable to attend work due to illness or injury and satisfied the relevant requirements, she would receive SSP and that the employer did not offer contractual sick pay. The tribunal accepted that on 24 October 2018 she was told by Mr Aden Bradley to go home and change unsafe footwear, and that she later produced medical certification backdating her absence to that date. It found, however, that the contract could only objectively be read as providing SSP rather than contractual sick pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim number 1801310/2019 concerned unpaid wages said to be due at contractual sick pay rate rather than SSP. The tribunal found the contract provided for SSP only and no contractual sick pay, so there was no unlawful deduction under section 13 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim number 1805215/2019 concerned unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal found the claimant had been paid for 2018 save for 2 days carried over, and that no 2019 holiday pay had yet become due because the holiday year had not ended and the employment had not terminated. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulations 13 and 16
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.