Case 2309157/2025 · Employment Tribunal
James Anderson (C1) and Olivia Bembridge (C2) v Chloe Beeson trading as The Grove Ferry Inn — 2026
- Case reference
- 2309157/2025
- Decision date
- 21 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Da Costa
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Anderson (C1) and Olivia Bembridge (C2)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that there had been a transfer of an undertaking from John Hinsley to Chloe Beeson on 17 September 2025. James Anderson’s and Olivia Bembridge’s rights to holiday pay, together with liability for the failure to pay it, therefore transferred to Chloe Beeson.
The claimants’ complaints of unlawful deductions of wages in the form of accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeded. The Tribunal accepted calculations based on payslips, applicable National Minimum Wage rates, holiday pay received in summer 2024 and the statutory entitlement calculated using the appropriate government calculator. It awarded £617 to James Anderson and £434 to Olivia Bembridge.
The Tribunal found that the claimants had no normal working hours in the zero-hours environment and applied section 224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Using a calculation date of 31 May 2025, it calculated average weekly hours over the relevant 12 worked weeks as 22 hours for James Anderson and 40 hours for Olivia Bembridge, at an hourly rate of £11.44.
The respondent was in breach of the duty under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide written particulars when proceedings began. The Tribunal therefore applied the minimum increase of two weeks’ pay under section 38(3)(b) of the Employment Act 2002, awarding an additional £503.36 to James Anderson and £915.20 to Olivia Bembridge. It found no exceptional circumstances making that increase unjust or inequitable, but declined to apply the higher amount. The total awarded was £1,120.36 to James Anderson and £1,349.20 to Olivia Bembridge, amounting to £2,469.56 overall.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Tribunal found that an undertaking transferred from John Hinsley to Chloe Beeson on 17 September 2025, transferring the claimants’ holiday-pay rights and the associated liability. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The complaints were described as unlawful deductions of wages in the form of accrued but unpaid holiday pay, brought pursuant to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The holiday-pay awards were £617 for James Anderson and £434 for Olivia Bembridge. | Upheld | — | £1,051 |
| Other | Because the respondent was in breach of the duty under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide written particulars when proceedings began, the Tribunal applied the minimum two-week increase under section 38(3)(b) of the Employment Act 2002: £503.36 for James Anderson and £915.20 for Olivia Bembridge. | Upheld | — | £1,419 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,470
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 30A(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38(3)(b) of the Employment Act 2002
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.