Case 2501360/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Francis Lee Quigley Ms Margaret Jane McDowell v Sweethart Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501360/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emma Heather
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Francis Lee Quigley Ms Margaret Jane McDowell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard joined claims by Mr Quigley and Ms McDowell against Sweethart Ltd, dealt with remotely by CVP before Employment Judge Heather on 27 August 2024. Both claimants' complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were found not well-founded and were dismissed. Mr Quigley's holiday pay complaint was also dismissed, while Ms McDowell's holiday pay complaint succeeded on the basis that the respondent failed to pay her for holidays accrued but not taken at the end of her employment.
In respect of both claimants, the Tribunal found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The Tribunal considered it just and equitable to award each claimant an amount equal to four weeks' gross pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The respondent was ordered to pay Mr Quigley a total of £2,736 and Ms McDowell a total of £1,308.71 (comprising £156.71 holiday pay and £1,152 under section 38). Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will only follow if requested in accordance with the rules.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Quigley's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Mr Quigley's holiday pay complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failure to provide Mr Quigley with a written statement of employment particulars; award of four weeks' gross pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £2,736 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms McDowell's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Ms McDowell's holiday pay complaint was well-founded; respondent ordered to pay £156.71 for holidays accrued but not taken at termination. | Upheld | — | £156 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to provide Ms McDowell with a written statement of employment particulars; award of four weeks' gross pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,044
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 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.