Case 3304952/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Exeter v Breezemount Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304952/2023
- Decision date
- 13 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Warren Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Exeter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard by Employment Judge S Warren sitting alone at Bury St Edmunds by CVP on 14 and 15 December 2023. The written judgment records three complaints: a complaint under section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996, a complaint under the Working Time Regulations for unpaid accrued annual leave, and a complaint of unlawful deductions from wages.
The section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 complaint was found not well founded and dismissed. The judgment gives no further detail in the extracted text about the factual basis of that complaint.
The Working Time Regulations claim for unpaid accrued annual leave succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £415.36, which the judgment states amounted to four days gross pay. That is the only monetary award recorded in the judgment.
The unlawful deductions from wages complaint was also found not well founded and dismissed. No separate award was made in relation to that claim, and the judgment does not record any additional remedy beyond the holiday pay payment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint brought under section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found it was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Complaint under the Working Time Regulations for unpaid accrued annual leave succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of £415.36, described as four days gross pay. | Upheld | — | £415 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £415
- across all upheld claims
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.