Case 2401858/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Reynolds v DJPP Leisure Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401858/2022
- Decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Reynolds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Liverpool by CVP on 8 December 2022 before Employment Judge Horne, Mr Reynolds succeeded in his claim for holiday pay. The tribunal found that DJPP Leisure Ltd had failed to pay him for untaken annual leave on termination of employment and ordered payment of £485.87 gross.
The claimant also asked for an additional sum, or a percentage increase in the amount ordered, because of the respondent's delay in complying with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That request was refused because the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to make such an award or to increase the sum ordered. The tribunal also said it had no jurisdiction to award interest on the sum awarded, so the judgment remained at £485.87 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant for untaken annual leave on termination of employment. The claimant's request for an additional sum or percentage increase because of delay in complying with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused for lack of jurisdiction, and the tribunal also said it had no jurisdiction to award interest. | Upheld | — | £486 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £486
- 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.