Case 3309689/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Defriend, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309689/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms A Defriend, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Laidler, sitting alone at Bury St Edmunds on 9 and 10 July 2024, determined liability only in this multi-issue claim by Mr Martin Blake against Messrs E Hudson Baker. The tribunal found that the claimant had not been given a written statement of particulars under s.1 ERA 1996 in 2002 or 2009 as alleged, but that when he requested one at the grievance hearing on 8 May 2023 it was not provided until 10 October 2023, breaching paragraph 7B of Schedule 2 ERA. Four weeks' pay was found to be just and equitable compensation for that breach. Itemised pay statements were held to be compliant with s.8 ERA.
On working time, the tribunal held the claimant had not been permitted to exercise his right to rest breaks, with compensation limited to the period from 30 March 2023 onwards rather than from 2017 as claimed. On pay, the tribunal found no breach of the National Minimum Wage Regulations from April 2023, accepted that the parties had reached an agreement in or about 2017 on on-call and call-out pay, and held it had no jurisdiction over an overtime claim that was not included in the ET1.
In relation to the grievance, the tribunal found that the respondent acted unreasonably in proposing a solicitor from Birketts to deal with the appeal after the claimant's objections to Birketts' involvement had already been accepted, amounting to a breach of the ACAS Code warranting a 5% uplift on any award. The delay in dealing with the grievance was not found to be unreasonable given the size of the business and the complexity of the issues. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing under case management orders.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under s.1 ERA 1996 was not made out in 2002 or 2009; however the tribunal found a breach of paragraph 7B of Schedule 2 ERA when the statement requested on 8 May 2023 was not provided until 10 October 2023. Tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay as just and equitable compensation (amount not quantified in this judgment). | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Itemised pay statements under s.8 ERA 1996 were found to be compliant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Tribunal found the claimant was not permitted to exercise his right to rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations. Entitled to just and equitable compensation, but only for the period after 30 March 2023 (not from 2017 as claimed). Quantum reserved to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No breach of National Minimum Wage Regulations found in relation to basic pay from April 2023. The tribunal recorded the parties had reached agreement in or about 2017 on on-call pay (£5 per night on call, overtime rate for hours worked while on call). There was no ET1 claim for overtime and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over that claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay calculation issues were addressed; the respondent confirmed pay would be calculated by reference to the previous 52 weeks going forward. The substantive remedy/quantum for any historic underpayment was reserved to a separate remedy hearing per case management orders. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.4 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA
- Paragraph 7B of Schedule 2 ERA
- Regulation 10 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 11 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 24 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- ss.222 and 223 ERA
- Rule 2 Employment Tribunal Rules (overriding objective)
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.