Case 3312252/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Larter v A Dent Limited c/o Nigel Adams — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312252/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Islam Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Larter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe discrimination claim brought by Miss R Larter against A Dent Limited c/o Nigel Adams was withdrawn pursuant to Rule 51 and dismissed. The judgment does not record any merits findings on that claim.
The tribunal then dealt with the holiday pay claim. It found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable to do so and that it was presented within a further reasonable period.
On liability, the tribunal held that the holiday pay claim was well-founded because the respondent failed to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but untaken on the date her employment ended. The respondent was ordered to pay £204.25.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The discrimination claim was withdrawn pursuant to Rule 51 and the judgment states that the claim is dismissed; no merits finding is recorded. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the unpaid holiday pay claim was outside the ordinary time limit but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and that it was brought within a further reasonable period. It held that the respondent was in breach of contract in failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when the employment ended. | Upheld | — | £204 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £204
- 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.