Case 1803369/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Walters v District Enforcement Limited HELD by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) (at Leeds) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803369/2022
- Decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Walters
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Walters' claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed on withdrawal after the tribunal explained that she did not have the two years' service needed to bring that claim. The tribunal recorded that she started employment on 17 August 2020 and that her employment ended on 29 April 2022, which was less than two years after commencement.
The notice pay claim failed because the claimant had given one month's notice on 11 March 2022, attempted to retract it by email on 6 April 2022, and that retraction was not accepted by the respondent. The tribunal found that the parties then mutually agreed to extend the employment until the end of April 2022, so the employment ended on the claimant's notice rather than on notice from the respondent. The holiday pay claim failed because carry-over of leave required written authority under the respondent's procedure, and no such written authority was produced.
On the tribunal's findings, the claimant had taken one day more leave than she was entitled to by the end of April 2022 and the respondent had recovered the excess. The claim for unauthorised deduction of wages and expenses was also dismissed. The claimant accepted in cross-examination that she had been paid for 6 April 2022 and 14 April 2022, and she accepted that 2 March 2022 was her first day of sickness and not payable under the respondent's sick pay scheme.
Two further sick-pay claims were withdrawn. The claims for vehicle cleaning, mileage and uniform were out of time, with no reasonable practicability issue raised. The parking expenses claim failed because the respondent's policy required expenses to be claimed on prescribed forms, within one month, and with supporting documents, and those requirements were not met.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant after the tribunal explained that she did not have the two years' service needed to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The 'no notice pay' claim failed because the claimant had given one month's notice on 11 March 2022, attempted to retract it on 6 April 2022, and the tribunal found the parties then mutually agreed to extend employment until 29 April 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found no written authority for carry-over of leave under the respondent's procedure. On its findings the claimant had taken one day more leave than she was entitled to by the end of April 2022, and the excess had been recovered. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The pay and expenses claim failed because the claimant accepted she had been paid for 6 and 14 April 2022, accepted she was not entitled to sick pay on 2 March 2022, withdrew two further sick-pay items, and the remaining expenses claims were out of time or did not comply with the respondent's expenses policy. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.