Case 2501626/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Emmerson v Riverside Beach Hotel Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501626/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Langridge Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Emmerson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case came back before Employment Judge Langridge on 5 December 2023 after an earlier hearing at which the claimant did not attend. The claimant apologised and said his phone had been faulty. The hearing was listed to consider whether some or all claims should be struck out, and the parties also addressed the limited documentary evidence produced by the respondent.
The claimant withdrew his claims about provision of meals, rest breaks and a minimum number of working hours a week after accepting that the respondent had not breached any legal rights in relation to those matters. During the hearing the parties also agreed the calculation of holiday pay, and the respondent agreed to make payments of £47.93 for holiday pay and £16 for tips, without admission of liability and subject to statutory deductions.
The remaining disputed issue was the claimant's entitlement to one week's notice. The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent was entitled to terminate the employment without notice because of the claimant's conduct. The respondent relied on concerns about the claimant's behaviour towards a female colleague, who had complained about unwanted attention, together with a statement from that employee and screenshots of messages obtained in May 2023.
The claimant did not challenge the screenshots, and the tribunal was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence supported the respondent's position. It found that the respondent had acted on that evidence when it dismissed the claimant without notice, and that this was a genuine decision based on the effect of the behaviour on the female colleague and a desire to protect her in the workplace. The tribunal concluded that the respondent could prove a reason to dismiss without notice, so the notice claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). Once all claims had been disposed of, there was no remaining claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for provision of meals; withdrawn after the claimant accepted the respondent had not breached any legal rights in relation to it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for rest breaks; withdrawn after the claimant accepted the respondent had not breached any legal rights in relation to it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim for a minimum number of working hours a week; withdrawn. The judgment grouped this with the meals and rest-break claims and did not identify a separate statutory basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Disposed of by consent, without admission of liability, after the parties agreed the holiday pay calculation. | Settled | — | £48 |
| Other | Disposed of by consent as a payment in respect of tips, without admission of liability. | Settled | — | £16 |
| Breach of contract | Notice entitlement claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success; the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that it had grounds to dismiss without notice based on the claimant's conduct. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £64
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.