Case 3311560/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Padure, solicitor For the v Bamya Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311560/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Padure, solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unpaid holiday pay. It found that the claimant was entitled to 97 days' holiday pay at a rate of £100 per day gross, producing an award of £9,700 before deduction of income tax and national insurance contributions at source.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and the claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 concerning the failure to provide a section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 statement. The written judgment records the outcomes only and states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal described this as a claim for unpaid holiday pay and awarded 97 days at £100 per day gross, subject to tax and national insurance deductions at source. | Upheld | — | £9,700 |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This relates to the claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the taxonomy does not contain a more specific category. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,700
- 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.