Case 2406110/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mason Standish v Elevate Finishing Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406110/2022
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mason Standish
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, sitting by CVP before Employment Judge Ficklin, found that Mr Mason Standish’s claim for holiday pay was well-founded. It awarded £1,120, calculated as 4.67 weeks at the gross weekly pay of £240.
The tribunal also found the claim for unpaid notice pay well-founded and awarded £240, representing one week’s notice pay at £240. In addition, it made a statutory award of £480 under section 38(3)(a)-(b) of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had failed to provide a statement of employment particulars.
The total award was £1,840. The accompanying notice stated that interest would be payable on unpaid sums after the relevant decision day, but no separate interest amount was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for failure to pay holiday pay well-founded and awarded £1,120, calculated as 4.67 weeks at the gross weekly pay of £240. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid notice pay well-founded and awarded £240, being one week at the gross weekly pay of £240. | Upheld | — | £240 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £480 under section 38(3)(a)-(b) of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent failed to provide a statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,840
- 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.