Case 2403640/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Christou (1) and Mr P Baldwin (2) v Odema Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403640/2022
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Christou (1) and Mr P Baldwin (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaints of unfair constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The judgment records that those claims did not succeed, and no dismissal remedy was awarded.
For the second claimant, the tribunal upheld the untaken holiday pay complaint to the extent set out in the annex. It found that the claimant had a contractual annual leave entitlement of 24 days plus statutory holidays, that the respondent had introduced a short exceptional holiday year from 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2021 when changing the holiday year, and that employees were allowed to carry forward leave accrued in that exceptional period. On the tribunal's calculations, the claimant had one day of accrued untaken holiday outstanding at termination, for which the respondent was ordered to pay £346.15 gross, calculated as a day's pay based on a salary of £90,000.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The second claimant succeeded to the extent of one day's untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £346 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £346
- 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.