Case 2501948/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Davison (First Claimant) v Serenity H2O Ltd and Hamilton Facilities Management Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501948/2021
- Decision date
- 11 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Davison (First Claimant)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote public hearing in Newcastle on 4 March 2022, Employment Judge Shore decided claims brought by four claimants against Serenity H2O Ltd and Hamilton Facilities Management Ltd. The first claimant, Ms E Davison, failed on her claims of unauthorised deduction of wages, unpaid holiday pay, and unfair dismissal against Serenity H2O Ltd, with the tribunal finding the first two claims were not well-founded and the unfair dismissal claim failing.
David McMenamin succeeded against Hamilton Facilities Management Ltd on unauthorised deduction of wages, holiday pay, and breach of contract for notice pay. The tribunal awarded £7,500 for unpaid wages from December 2021 to 30 April 2022 and £370 for pension contributions, £2,076 for holiday accrued but not taken, and £1,500 for notice pay. His unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Leah Hockings succeeded against Serenity H2O Ltd on unauthorised deduction of wages, holiday pay, and breach of contract. The tribunal awarded £3,848.60 net for unpaid wages from December 2021 to 31 March 2022, £1,541.66 net for KIT days worked during maternity leave, and £106.14 net for pension contributions, together with £3,915 gross for untaken holiday and £3,038.33 gross for notice pay. Robert Brand succeeded against Hamilton Facilities Management Ltd on the same three heads, with awards of £7,258.75 gross for unpaid wages from December 2021 to 30 April 2022, £121.75 gross for pension contributions, £2,004.75 gross for holiday pay, and £1,471.75 gross for notice pay. His unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed upon withdrawal. The aggregate awards totalled £34,752.73.
Claims and outcomes
15 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 | First claimant, Ms E Davison, against Serenity H2O Ltd; claim contrary to section 13 ERA 1996 was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | First claimant, Ms E Davison, against Serenity H2O Ltd; claim for holiday accrued but not taken was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant, Ms E Davison, against Serenity H2O Ltd; unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant, David McMenamin, against Hamilton Facilities Management Ltd; award comprised £7,500 for unpaid pay from December 2021 to 30 April 2022 and £370 for pension contributions, both gross before deductions. | Upheld | — | £7,870 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant, David McMenamin, against Hamilton Facilities Management Ltd; £2,076 gross for holiday accrued but not taken. | Upheld | — | £2,076 |
| Breach of contract | Second claimant, David McMenamin, against Hamilton Facilities Management Ltd; £1,500 gross for failure to pay notice pay. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,753
- 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.