Case 2500819/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Patton v Innspired Leisure (Durham) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500819/2022
- Decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluskey REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Patton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Patton was entitled to 5.6 weeks' annual leave per year, that she had no normal working hours, and that her holiday year ran from 10 October 2021, the start date of her employment. On that basis, it concluded that the holiday pay paid for the week of annual leave ending 11 February 2022 and the week ending 11 March 2022 had been underpaid.
The holiday pay claim was therefore well founded and the respondent was ordered to pay £132.07 gross, subject to deduction of income tax and national insurance before payment. The tribunal also upheld Ms Patton's claim for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and awarded £200.24, described as two weeks' pay.
The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No discrimination, dismissal, or whistleblowing claims are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for underpayment of holiday pay for the week of annual leave ending 11 February 2022 and the week of annual leave ending 11 March 2022. | Upheld | — | £132 |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment; the tribunal awarded two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £332
- 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.