Case 2202736/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Charles Otter and Curzon House Hotel — 2020

Case reference: 2202736/2019
Decision date: 2 March 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Palca Appearances
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Charles Otter and Curzon House Hotel

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked as a receptionist from 29 March 2019 on 37.5 hours per week at £8.50 per hour. She brought claims including unlawful deductions from wages, holiday pay, breach of contract and a complaint about 11-hour rest breaks, but withdrew the unlawful deductions and shift-break claims, leaving notice pay and holiday pay for determination. The contract provided for two weeks' notice in the first two years of employment and 28 days' paid holiday per year.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The claim was for unpaid notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant had told the reception manager in effect that she would not attend the allocated day shifts on 5 and 6 June 2019, treated this as a serious breach of contract, and held that the respondent was entitled to terminate summarily without notice.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The claim for a payment in lieu of untaken holiday entitlement succeeded under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal calculated 5.22 days' holiday due for 68 days' employment, found that no holiday had been taken, assessed the unpaid holiday pay at £332.78, and applied a 15% uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1982 to reach £382.70.	Upheld	—	£383

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £383; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.