Case 2409242/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Burns v DPD Group UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409242/2023
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Burns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant's claim for unpaid accrued holiday under the Working Time Regulations was well-founded. By agreement between the parties, the respondent was ordered to pay £332.28, less lawful deductions of tax and national insurance.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. It also dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim, finding that the respondent was contractually entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant because he had committed gross misconduct.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out the detailed factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the conclusions recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid accrued holidays brought under the Working Time Regulations, well-founded by agreement between the parties, with the award subject to lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £332 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the respondent was contractually entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant, who had committed gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £332
- 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.