Case 3200801/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Zach Harrowing v Silvercrest Energy Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200801/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Zach Harrowing
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 11 August 2022 before Employment Judge Travers, the tribunal awarded Zach Harrowing a total of £1,491.53 net of tax. The award was made up of £623.07 holiday pay, £838.46 notice pay, and £30 pension contribution.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also dealt with a claim for unlawful deduction of wages relating to alleged pay shortfalls from April to July 2021. That claim was made out of time, and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it because the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the statutory time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £623 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records this as notice pay (£838.46) and pension contribution (£30) within the overall award; it does not separately label the claim heading in the findings. | Upheld | — | £868 |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim relating to alleged pay shortfalls from April to July 2021 was out of time; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant failed to show that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory time limit. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,492
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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.