Case 2501343/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Swaddle v Tavistock Hospitality Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501343/2024
- Decision date
- 6 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Swaddle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's Working Time Regulations complaint under regulation 30 and the unlawful deduction from wages complaint under section 23 ERA 1996 because both were presented out of time. In each case, the claimant conceded that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the applicable limitation period.
The redundancy payment claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy within sections 136 and 139 ERA 1996, but the redundancy payment had already been paid in full before the hearing, so no further award was due under section 164 ERA 1996.
The respondent conceded that it had breached the duty to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 ERA 1996, but the tribunal made no award because neither section 38(1) nor 38(2) of the Employment Act 2002 applied and, in any event, an award would have been unjust or inequitable under section 38(5). The respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract was dismissed because the claimant had not brought a contract claim before the tribunal, so the tribunal was precluded from entertaining it.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The regulation 30 complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was presented out of time, and the claimant conceded it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 complaint was presented out of time, and the claimant conceded it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but the redundancy payment had already been paid in full before the hearing, so no award remained due under section 164 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent conceded a breach of the duty to provide written particulars under section 1 ERA 1996, but no award was made because neither section 38(1) nor 38(2) of the Employment Act 2002 applied and an award would have been unjust or inequitable under section 38(5). | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract was dismissed because the claimant had not brought a contract claim before the tribunal, so the tribunal was precluded from entertaining it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 136 and 139 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 38(1), 38(2) and 38(5) Employment Act 2002
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.