Case 2401849/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wilding v Anchor MOT Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401849/2023
- Decision date
- 15 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wilding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal substituted Anchor MOT Ltd as the proper respondent. It found that the claimant had a right to carry over 12 days of annual leave from 2020 until the end of 2022, and that the respondent failed to permit him to take that leave during the carry-over period. Compensation for that claim was assessed at £881.28 gross, calculated as 12 days by 8 hours by the claimant’s hourly rate of £9.18.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been constructively dismissed and upheld his unfair dismissal complaint. It awarded a basic award of £550.80, calculated by reference to 3 years’ service, a 0.5 service factor for service under age 22, and a weekly pay figure of £367.20. The tribunal made no compensatory award. The written record does not set out any additional remedy findings beyond those awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to carry over 12 days of annual leave from 2020 until the end of 2022 and that the respondent failed to permit him to take that leave during the carry-over period. | Upheld | — | £881 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed and that his unfair dismissal complaint was well founded. It made a basic award only and no compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £551 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,432
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £551
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.