Case 3201762/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Acheampong v Supporting Young Futures — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201762/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Acheampong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a hearing before Employment Judge Housego on 14 December 2020 at East London Hearing Centre by telephone. The claimant, Mr Michael Acheampong, brought a holiday pay claim against Supporting Young Futures. The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted he was a worker entitled to holiday pay and that he said he had not been paid holiday pay for the 2018 and 2019 calendar years while working for the respondent.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had already brought a separate tribunal claim, 3201989/2020, making the same holiday pay claim and also a race discrimination claim, and had also brought a third claim, 3201842/2020, which had been rejected. It further recorded that the claimant had obtained County Court judgment dated 19 August 2020 for £4,756.25, comprising £4,571.25 and £185 costs, for the holiday pay claim.
Because the claimant had already obtained judgment for the same holiday pay claim in the County Court, the tribunal held that he could not pursue the same subject matter again in the Employment Tribunal. It said that more than one claim for the same subject matter is impermissible and that continuing this claim would risk double recovery. The claim was therefore struck out under Rule 37. The judgment did not determine any discrimination claim or make any monetary award in this case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal struck out the holiday pay claim under Rule 37 because the claimant had already obtained County Court judgment for the same holiday pay demand, so allowing this tribunal claim to continue would risk double recovery. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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.