Case 2408878/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hutchcraft v Crown and Cushion Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408878/2021
- Decision date
- 8 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ganner
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Hutchcraft
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Liverpool on 26 April 2022 before Employment Judge Ganner sitting alone. The claimant, Mr A Hutchcraft, appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Mr R Spicer, the second respondent’s director. The judgment records that the claimant’s claims succeeded by agreement.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant gross sums of £2,584 for untaken holiday pay and £370 for notice pay, making a total gross award of £2,954. The judgment does not set out substantive reasons for the agreement outcome, and written reasons were not provided because the judgment was given orally at the hearing. The separate notice on interest states the relevant judgment day, calculation day and stipulated rate, but the judgment itself does not award a separate interest sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal recorded that, by agreement, the claimant’s claim succeeded and he was awarded £2,584 gross in respect of untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,584 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that, by agreement, the claimant’s claim succeeded and he was awarded £370 gross in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £370 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,954
- 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.