Case 2410512/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Baines v H Parkinson Haulage Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410512/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Baines
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal held that Mr P Baines’s claim for unlawful deduction from pay, described in the judgment as unpaid accrued holiday under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998, succeeded. The tribunal did not set out detailed reasons in the extracted text, but it recorded that the claim was allowed and that the hearing listed for 21 October 2019 was cancelled.
The tribunal awarded £898.00 in respect of unpaid accrued holiday. It also granted the claimant’s application for costs limited to preparation time and ordered the respondent to pay £390.00 for that item.
The total sum ordered against H Parkinson Haulage Limited was £1,288.00. The accompanying notice explains that statutory interest may apply under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award is not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, but no separate interest figure was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from pay, described as unpaid accrued holiday under Part II ERA 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998, succeeded. The judgment awards £898 for unpaid accrued holiday. | Upheld | — | £898 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,288
- 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.