Case 2405546/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Smith v Parks of Hamilton (Coach Hirers) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405546/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cronshaw Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Cronshaw recorded that the claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The breach of contract claim succeeded by consent. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £420 in damages for breach of contract, said to reflect the notice pay to which the claimant was entitled. The judgment states that this was a net sum but had been calculated using gross pay because the claimant was likely to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay was found well founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £414.66, described as the net sum unlawfully deducted. The written record also includes the standard notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 stating that qualifying sums may carry interest if unpaid after the relevant period, but no separate interest figure was assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded by consent. The award was damages for breach of contract reflecting notice pay, described as a net sum calculated using gross pay because of the likelihood of tax under Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £420 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay was found well founded, and the claimant was awarded the net sum unlawfully deducted. | Upheld | — | £415 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £835
- 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.