Case 3301761/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Burns C1 Mr A MacLeod C2 Iain Thomson C3 Mr J Weir C4 v Amey Services Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 3301761/2014
- Decision date
- 28 February 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Burns C1 Mr A MacLeod C2 Iain Thomson C3 Mr J Weir C4
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Quill, sitting alone at Watford on 24 July 2024, confirmed that the earlier judgment of EJ Southam (heard 23 February 2017, sent 28 February 2017) was not varied or revoked, and that as a result the claimants could not amend their current claims to include periods prior to 1 November 2013. Following those decisions, a judgment was issued by consent under Rule 64.
The respondent accepted that it had underpaid the four claimants in respect of holiday pay for the period 1 November 2013 to 7 June 2016 and agreed to make gross payments by 21 August 2024 of £2,425.53 to Mr Burns, £1,927.21 to Mr MacLeod, £511.35 to Mr Thomson and £2,349.74 to Mr Weir, subject to PAYE deductions but without other deduction or set off.
All claims forming part of the multiple with reference 3293 were recorded as at an end, with the specific case numbers for the four claimants set out in the schedule attached to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | By consent under Rule 64. Respondent agreed it underpaid the claimants in relation to holiday pay for the period 1 November 2013 to 7 June 2016. Per-claimant gross awards: Burns C1 £2,425.53; MacLeod C2 £1,927.21; Thomson C3 £511.35; Weir C4 £2,349.74. Figures are gross and subject to PAYE. | Upheld | — | £7,214 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing flagged unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment text resolves the underpayment as a holiday pay matter by consent and does not separately adjudicate an unlawful deduction claim. The tribunal also confirmed an earlier judgment (EJ Southam, 23 February 2017, sent 28 February 2017) was not varied or revoked, and that the claimants could not amend to include periods prior to 1 November 2013. All claims in the multiple (reference 3293) are recorded as now at an end. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,214
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 64
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.