Case 2500543/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Smith v Mark Swatts Morse LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500543/2024
- Decision date
- 28 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Loy sat alone at Newcastle by CVP on 17 June 2024. The tribunal held that the claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment was well founded and succeeded, and also found in the claimant's favour on unpaid holiday pay and unpaid wages. The claimant's claim for unpaid pension contributions was withdrawn.
On remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the total gross sum of £21,204.58. That figure comprised a statutory redundancy payment of £12,538.50, unpaid wages of £6,894.66, and unpaid holiday pay of £1,771.42. The unpaid wages figure was calculated as 2 months' pay at £3,083.33 gross per month, plus 5 days at £145.60 gross per day; the holiday pay figure was calculated on 12.4 days accrued unpaid holiday at £142.85 gross per day.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment found well founded and awarded at £12,538.50. | Upheld | — | £12,539 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay found well founded and awarded at £1,771.42 for 12.4 days accrued unpaid holiday. | Upheld | — | £1,771 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages found well founded and awarded at £6,894.66, made up of 2 months and 5 days outstanding. | Upheld | — | £6,895 |
| Other | Claim for unpaid pension contributions was withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,205
- 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.