Case 2402976/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Clayton v Mr Martin Gott and Ms Nicola Robertson t/a Gott and Robinson — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402976/2021
- Decision date
- 20 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Clayton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr W Clayton, brought claims relating to unpaid accrued holiday, unlawful deduction from pay, and breach of contract against Mr Martin Gott and Ms Nicola Robertson trading as Gott and Robinson. The hearing took place at Manchester Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Howard on 16 September 2021.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unpaid accrued holiday pursuant to regulations 13 to 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2,307.20 in respect of that claim.
The claimant’s claims of unlawful deduction from pay and breach of contract, both described in the judgment as relating to unpaid notice of termination of employment, failed and were dismissed. The judgment also included the standard tribunal notice that unpaid sums may carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid accrued holiday under regulations 13-16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; tribunal ordered payment of £2,307.20. | Upheld | — | £2,307 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction from pay, described in the judgment as unpaid notice of termination of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract, described in the judgment as unpaid notice of termination of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,307
- 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.