Case 2500760/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Twizell v Kirkley Cycles Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500760/2022
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Twizell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Aspden sat at Newcastle on 30 and 31 January and 13 February 2023. The claimant, Mrs Twizell, appeared in person and the respondent, Kirkley Cycles Limited, was represented by a solicitor. The tribunal dismissed all three complaints and gave reasons orally at the hearing, with written reasons not provided unless requested.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded. It also rejected the related breach of contract complaint, which alleged termination of employment without notice. A third complaint, framed as unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because holiday pay said to be due under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 had not been paid, was also found not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was pleaded as a failure to pay holiday pay due under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and was rejected. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.