Case 2303034/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Lewry v Springfield Catering Management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303034/2023
- Decision date
- 12 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Lewry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal recorded the respondent’s correct name as Springfield Catering Management Ltd. It then determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that Mr K Lewry was entitled to a redundancy payment of £11,981.40.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded. It held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date his employment ended, and ordered payment of £157.50. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum.
A claim for unlawful deductions in respect of pension contributions was not finally determined in this judgment and was stated to continue.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £11,981 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the complaint in respect of holiday pay well-founded and held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by not paying for holidays accrued but untaken when employment ended. | Upheld | — | £158 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,139
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.