Case 2409853/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Woodburn v GPW Leisure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409853/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Woodburn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Woodburn worked at the Odd Frog from May 2022 and also worked shifts at the Derby. The tribunal found that, for at least the last three weeks of her time at the Derby, she was employed by GPW Leisure Limited, and that her earlier service counted toward continuity because the Odd Frog work with Hummingbird Leisure Limited was treated as continuous employment with an associated employer. On that basis, the claimant had enough continuous employment to be entitled to one week’s notice under s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that on 23 September 2022 the claimant was unwell and told a manager, Mel, that she could not work that day. Mel replied, “if you don’t come in tonight don’t come back at all”. The tribunal held that this was a clear and unequivocal dismissal by someone with authority, or at least ostensible authority, to dismiss her. Because no notice was given, the respondent was in breach of contract and the claimant was awarded £170.05 in damages, calculated by reference to 17.9 hours at £9.50 per hour.
On holiday pay, the respondent accepted that £88.73 was due and provided an amended payslip showing that figure as holiday accrued but not taken, based on 9.34 hours. The claimant sought £162.36, but the tribunal found she could not explain the basis for that higher figure. After reviewing the payslips and the relevant annual leave calculation, the tribunal preferred the respondent’s revised figure and awarded only £88.73. The judgment therefore records two successful claims, with a total monetary award of £258.78.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had continuity of employment sufficient to be entitled to one week’s notice under s.86 ERA 1996, and that she was dismissed on 23 September 2022 by text message without notice. | Upheld | — | £170 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent accepted that £88.73 was due, based on 9.34 hours of holiday accrued but not taken, and the tribunal awarded that sum rather than the claimant’s higher figure of £162.36. | Upheld | — | £89 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £259
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.218(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.231 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.