Case 2305430/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Grace v Blockhouse Hotels Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305430/2019
- Decision date
- 22 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Grace
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Hyde found that Blockhouse Hotels Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr S Grace’s wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £328.40 gross, calculated as 40 hours at £8.21 per hour gross.
The claimant’s redundancy payment complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment because he did not have two years’ qualifying service, as required by section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £192.11 gross, calculated as 23.4 hours of accrued holiday at £8.21 per hour. The hearing listed for 26 June 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £328.40 gross, described as 40 hours at £8.21 per hour gross. | Upheld | — | £328 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment because he did not have sufficient qualifying service under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (two years). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £192.11 gross, described as 23.4 hours accrued holiday at £8.21 per hour. | Upheld | — | £192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £521
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 155 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.