Case 2601585/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Burton v 001 Hardy Ltd Heard: In Nottingham — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601585/2022
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Burton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Burton worked for 001 Hardy Ltd as an administrator/book keeper from 20 January 2021 until 31 May 2022. The respondent did not attend the hearing. Employment Judge Ayre proceeded in the respondent’s absence under Rule 47, heard the claimant’s evidence, and accepted the documents she produced. The tribunal found that she had never been given a written contract or statement of employment particulars and had been offered and dismissed by text message.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had not taken any holiday during her employment and had been prevented from doing so. It accepted her calculations, based on a government website, of £406.25 for 2022 and £1,120 for 2021, and awarded £1,526.25 for accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not paid her notice pay. It held that the 31 May 2022 text from Mr Jack Hardy indicated a one-month notice period, so the claimant was entitled to £870 in notice pay.
The tribunal further found that no written statement of employment particulars had been provided by the time the claim was presented. Because the respondent was a very small business, the tribunal considered it appropriate under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 to award two weeks’ pay, and it ordered payment of £400 for that failure. The total award was £2,796.25.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one month’s notice and that the respondent breached the contract by not paying notice pay after dismissal by text on 31 May 2022. | Upheld | — | £870 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had not been allowed to take holiday during employment and had not been paid holiday pay on termination. It accepted her calculations for accrued but untaken holiday in 2021 and 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,526 |
| Other | The tribunal made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,796
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- regulations 13 to 16 and regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd [2022] IRLR 347 CA
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 23 ERA 1996
- 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.