Case 2304696/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Smart v A Hyatt Contractors Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304696/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Representation
- Venue
- London South Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Smart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant succeeded on all three pleaded heads of claim. It upheld the claim for unpaid holiday pay, recording that the claimant was entitled to 2.64 days unpaid holiday and awarding £316.80 gross for unpaid accrued annual leave.
It also upheld the breach of contract claim, which was for failure to pay notice pay. The tribunal awarded £600 gross, described as one week’s notice pay, and recorded that the claimant mitigated his loss after one week. In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy and awarded statutory redundancy pay.
The award section totals £316.80 gross for holiday pay, £600 gross for notice pay, and £1,713 statutory redundancy pay calculated as 2×1.5×£571. The combined award therefore comes to £2,629.80.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeded and that the claimant was entitled to 2.64 days unpaid holiday. The award section records £316.80 gross for 2.6 days unpaid accrued annual leave. | Upheld | — | £317 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was for failure to pay notice pay. The tribunal awarded £600 gross, described as one week’s notice pay, noting that the claimant mitigated his loss after one week. | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy and awarded statutory redundancy pay calculated as 2×1.5×£571. | Upheld | — | £1,713 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,630
- 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.