Case 1802587/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Allen v Advanced Adolescent Care Solutions Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802587/2021
- Decision date
- 4 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Sheffield, Employment Judge Miller sitting alone dismissed the claimant's claims that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed under the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015, that he had been wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract, and that he had suffered unauthorised deductions from wages. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The claimant succeeded only on his claim for pay in lieu of holiday on termination of employment. The tribunal ordered the respondent, Advanced Adolescent Care Solutions Ltd, to pay the claimant the gross sum of £400. No separate breakdown of any wider award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim in breach of the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for wrongful dismissal in breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for pay in lieu of holiday on termination of employment; tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £400. | Upheld | — | £400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £400
- 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.