Case 2409770/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Lancaster v The Oak Rushton Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2409770/2020
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Lancaster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant’s employment with The Oak Rushton Limited ceased temporarily on 31 December 2019 and did not recommence. On that basis, it considered the financial claims arising from the termination of employment.
The claimant’s claim of unlawful deduction of wages was found not well founded and was dismissed. The tribunal then upheld the claim for payment in lieu of holidays accrued but not taken at the date of termination, awarding £577.98 gross in respect of 16 days’ holiday entitlement.
The claimant’s breach of contract claim for notice pay also succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £180.62 gross. The total award was £758.60, and the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held this claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for payment in lieu of holidays accrued but not taken at the date of termination succeeded; the tribunal awarded £577.98 gross for 16 days' holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £578 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay succeeded; the tribunal awarded £180.62 gross. | Upheld | — | £181 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £759
- 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.