Case 2602186/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Isam v R & D Supermarket Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602186/2019
- Decision date
- 3 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Isam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent from 15 September 2017 until she resigned on 22 June 2019, on 16 hours per week at £8.21 per hour. She resigned with notice, but the respondent told her to finish immediately. The tribunal accepted that she had not waived her right to a week’s notice under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £131.36 gross notice pay.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had never been given written particulars or a contract setting out holiday entitlement or the basis for calculating holiday pay. It applied regulation 13(3)(b)(ii) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 to identify the leave year and then applied regulation 14 to calculate accrued untaken holiday at the end of employment. On the tribunal’s findings, the claimant had accrued 69 hours of holiday, had taken 36 hours, and was owed 33 hours’ pay, amounting to £270.93 gross.
The tribunal also relied on text messages from the respondent’s director confirming that the claimant had no contract. Because the respondent had breached the duty to provide written particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and because the claimant had succeeded on the holiday pay claim, the tribunal made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. That award was two weeks’ pay, £262.72. The total awarded was £665.01.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant gave notice when she resigned on 22 June 2019, remained available to work that notice, and had not waived the entitlement. It awarded one week’s notice pay at £8.21 per hour for 16 hours per week. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been given written particulars or a contract setting out holiday entitlement or the holiday calculation basis. Applying the Working Time Regulations 1998, it found 69 hours accrued, 36 hours taken, and 33 hours outstanding. | Upheld | — | £271 |
| Other | The tribunal made an additional award of two weeks’ pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £263 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £665
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.86
- Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 13(3)(b)(ii)
- Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 14
- Employment Act 2002 s.38
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.