Case 3313417/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Prince v Darel Richards — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313417/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Prince
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford CVP hearing on 11 August 2025, Employment Judge Feeney, sitting alone, recorded that Mr J Prince’s claims for holiday pay, unpaid wages, and notice pay succeeded against Darel Richards. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not include written reasons in the decision text.
The tribunal awarded £135 for holiday pay, calculated as 10.8 hours at £12.50 per hour. It also awarded £680 for unpaid wages at £12.50 per hour, and £250 for notice pay, representing one week’s notice on the basis of 20 hours at £12.50 per hour. The total award recorded for the judgment claims was £1,065.
In addition to the judgment award, the tribunal made a preparation time order of £450, calculated as 10 hours at £45 per hour. The decision record does not separate any further compensation heads or set out additional findings beyond the successful claims and the amounts awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Awarded for 10.8 hours at £12.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £135 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as unpaid wages at £12.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £680 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as one week of notice pay, calculated on 20 hours at £12.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,065
- 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.