Case 2601469/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms S Horner, Livestock Equine and Business Manager. — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601469/2019
- Decision date
- 4 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Clark
- Venue
- Boston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Boston on 4 October 2019, before Employment Judge R Clark sitting alone, recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms S Horner.
The remaining claims succeeded. The tribunal stated that the claim of unlawful deduction from wages succeeded, and that the claim of accrued but untaken annual leave also succeeded. The judgment does not set out written reasons for those conclusions because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to make payment of a gross sum that would account for tax and statutory deductions and result in a net payment to the claimant of £954.08. The judgment also records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records success on the claim of accrued but untaken annual leave, without further written reasons. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £954
- 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.