Case 2601173/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Key v Harlaxton Parish Council FINAL HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601173/2023
- Decision date
- 20 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Key
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Shore heard the case remotely from the Nottingham Tribunals Hearing Centre on 14 December 2023, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr A W Cartlidge, Councillor. The tribunal found that the claim had been presented in time. The claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of £52.56 (gross) of back pay was well-founded and succeeded, and ordered the respondent to pay that sum. The claimant's separate claim for £631.31 in respect of hours worked in excess of her contracted hours was found not to be well-founded and failed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons would only follow on request within 14 days. The judgment was signed on 14 December 2023 and sent to the parties on 20 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for failure to pay £52.56 (gross) in back pay well-founded; respondent ordered to pay £52.56 gross. | Upheld | — | £53 |
| Working time regulations | Claim for £631.31 for hours worked in excess of contracted hours not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £53
- 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.