Case 3310383/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Campbell v Ocado Central Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310383/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints about an alleged shortfall in holiday entitlement and/or holiday pay, based on Working Time Regulations entitlement. The tribunal held that those complaints failed and dismissed them.
The tribunal also addressed a possible breach of contract complaint about the same alleged shortfall. It found there was no jurisdiction because the claim form had been presented while the claimant was still a current employee, and added that the complaint would have failed on the merits in any event.
No award was made, so the tribunal did not need to decide whether any adjustment should be made under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for unreasonable failure by either party to comply with the ACAS Code for Grievances.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Complaints alleging shortfall in holiday entitlement based on Working Time Regulations entitlement failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaints alleging shortfall in holiday pay based on Working Time Regulations entitlement failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that, because the claim form was presented while the claimant was a current employee, there was no jurisdiction for a breach of contract complaint about shortfall in holiday entitlement and/or holiday pay; it also stated that such a complaint would have failed on the merits in any event. | Other | — | — |
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.