Case 3300019/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms S Sodhi, Litigation Consultant — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300019/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s complaint that he was entitled to payment for a Security Licence, finding that claim was not well founded. No monetary award was made in relation to that complaint.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant’s complaint of non-payment of holiday pay for length of service. It held that, as of 7 March 2024, he was entitled to take or be paid for a further 7.6 days of holiday by 31 March 2024, and that each year thereafter he was entitled to two extra days of holiday beyond the amount he would normally receive under his contract of employment because of his length of service.
The judgment records that the Claimant could elect either to take the outstanding holiday entitlement or be paid for it. No separate cash sum, interest, or other monetary award is stated in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint that the Claimant was entitled to payment for a Security Licence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of non-payment of holiday pay for length of service; tribunal held the Claimant was entitled, as of 7 March 2024, to take or be paid for a further 7.6 days of holiday by 31 March 2024, and to two extra days' holiday each year thereafter due to length of service. | Upheld | — | — |
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.