Case 2401959/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Denby and others (see schedule) v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401959/2020
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Denby and others (see schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a multiple-claimant proceeding heard by Employment Judge Slater at Manchester (by CVP) on 25 November 2024, with judgment sent to the parties on 3 December 2024. The Claimants are Miss B Denby and others listed in the schedule, and the Respondent is North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust. The parties were represented by Mr P Kerfoot, counsel for the Claimants, and Mr A Webster, counsel for the Respondent.
By consent, the tribunal found that the claims of the Claimants in Appendix 1 of unauthorised deductions of wages (holiday pay) were well-founded and succeeded, with the Respondent to pay the per-claimant sums set out in Appendix 1, less any required deductions for tax and national insurance. The claims of six Claimants in Appendix 2, the duplicate claims of Mrs Michelle Binstead (2402085/2020) and Mrs June-Marie Murray (2401997/2020), and the Claimants' alternative claims under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Upon no evidence being presented by the Claimants, the claims of the nine Claimants in Appendix 3 were not well founded and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims of unauthorised deductions of wages (holiday pay) by the Claimants in Appendix 1 are well-founded and succeed by consent. The Respondent shall pay the sums set out in Appendix 1 (per-claimant amounts, less tax and NI). No aggregate total is stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims of the 6 Claimants in Appendix 2 are dismissed upon withdrawal. Duplicate claims of Mrs Michelle Binstead (2402085/2020) and Mrs June-Marie Murray (2401997/2020) are also dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Claimants' alternative claims under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 are dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claims of the 9 Claimants in Appendix 3 are not well founded and are dismissed, upon no evidence being presented by the Claimants. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.