Case 3303343/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms May, Solicitor For the v Mr Hoyle, Consultant — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303343/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms May, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds on 9, 10 and 11 January 2024 before Employment Judge Tynan. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not reproduced in the judgment record.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered the Respondent to pay the net sum of £2,080. It also upheld the separate holiday pay complaint, finding that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when the employment ended, and ordered payment of £1,301.43 net. In both instances the Respondent was made responsible for any tax or National Insurance due.
The Claimant's remaining complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. Those were the unfair dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the redundancy payment complaint under Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the breach of contract complaint based on an alleged failure to give 12 weeks' notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered payment of the net amount of £2,080. The respondent was responsible for any tax or National Insurance due. | Upheld | — | £2,080 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded, holding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay for holidays accrued but untaken on termination. The respondent was ordered to pay the net sum of £1,301.43 and was responsible for any tax or National Insurance due. | Upheld | — | £1,301 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said this complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written record does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal said the redundancy payment complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written record does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract complaint concerning 12 weeks' notice or payment in lieu. The written record does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,381
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.