Case 1810820/2018 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr M Brain (solicitor) CONSENT — 2019
- Case reference
- 1810820/2018
- Decision date
- 4 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 4 June 2019 before Employment Judge JM Wade, with both claimants appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr M Brain, solicitor. The tribunal made a consent judgment.
The claimants' complaints of entitlement to holiday pay on the termination of their employment succeeded. The respondent conceded that nine days' holiday were untaken, and the tribunal ordered payment of gross sums for that entitlement.
The amounts recorded in the judgment were £760.14 for Mr M Biddles and £642.60 for Mrs J Biddles. The judgment also records that the dispute about whether two further days were untaken would be determined at a further hearing unless otherwise resolved.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent conceded that nine days' holiday were untaken and this gross sum was ordered for Mr Biddles. | Upheld | — | £760 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent conceded that nine days' holiday were untaken and this gross sum was ordered for Mrs Biddles. | Upheld | — | £643 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,403
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.