Case 2500873/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Rochester v Stagshaw Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500873/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Rochester
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Rochester, succeeded on all three claims against Stagshaw Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract because it gave only one week's notice to terminate the employment contract, whereas the contract entitled the claimant to four weeks' notice. The tribunal awarded £1,369.91 on that claim, made up of a pre-uplift figure of £1,095.93 after deducting £254.46 already paid, with a 25% uplift applied under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The claimant also succeeded on his claim under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had not paid the full contractual 'loyalty bonus' due to the claimant. It awarded £437.50, being the £350 deduction increased by 25% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The claimant further succeeded on his Working Time Regulations claim arising from accrued but untaken paid holiday at termination. The tribunal found that compensation was due under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and awarded £1,442.33, calculated from £1,153.86 before the same 25% uplift. The tribunal recorded that the breach of contract award was based on net pay and that liability for income tax and national insurance on that award lay with the respondent, whereas the wages and holiday pay awards were based on gross pay and any employee tax or national insurance liability lay with the claimant. The total awarded was £3,249.74.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint that the respondent gave one week's notice instead of the four weeks required by the contract. The tribunal awarded £1,095.93 before a 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, producing £1,369.91. The award was calculated by reference to net pay. | Upheld | — | £1,370 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the respondent failed to pay the full contractual 'loyalty bonus'. The unauthorised deduction was £350, increased by 25% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to £437.50. The award was calculated by reference to gross pay. | Upheld | — | £438 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint that the respondent failed to pay compensation for accrued but untaken paid holiday at termination, contrary to Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal calculated £1,153.86 before a 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, producing £1,442.33. The award was calculated by reference to gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,442 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.