Case 3312251/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v S Stern and others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312251/2023
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at Bury St Edmunds on 16 October 2024, before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone, the tribunal awarded Mr S Hughes £3,392.71 against the second respondent, Fountayne Managing Ltd (in voluntary liquidation). The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested.
The award was broken down into £745.14 for legitimately incurred but unpaid expenses under the claimant’s contract of employment, £1,107.57 for monies in lieu of accrued and untaken holiday at termination, and £1,540.00 for sums deducted from wages for payment into the employee pension that were not paid into the pension. The judgment records that the total of those heads of recovery was £3,392.71 payable by the second respondent to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Extracted from the award breakdown as 'legitimately incurred but unpaid expenses under the Claimant’s contract of employment'. The written judgment does not separately label this head of recovery as a distinct cause of action. | Upheld | — | £745 |
| Holiday pay | Extracted from the award breakdown as 'monies in lieu of accrued and untaken holiday at termination'. | Upheld | — | £1,108 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Extracted from the award breakdown as 'sums deducted from wages to be paid into the employees pension which were not paid into the pension'. | Upheld | — | £1,540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,393
- 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.