Case 3315223/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Norris Miss Tuttle Mrs Fryer Mrs Hurdle Mrs Bentick-Hill Mr Draper v The estate of Jonathan Draper (trading as Draper & Co and W M Draper) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315223/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Norris Miss Tuttle Mrs Fryer Mrs Hurdle Mrs Bentick-Hill Mr Draper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Reading on 25 and 26 April 2024, Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst heard claims by Mrs Norris, Miss Tuttle, Mrs Fryer, Mrs Hurdle, Mrs Bentick-Hill and Mr Draper against the estate of Jonathan Draper trading as Draper & Co and W M Draper. The tribunal held that the claimants had suffered unauthorised deductions from wages in the period 1 to 8 November 2022 inclusive, and that their holiday pay complaints were well-founded because holiday accrued but untaken when employment ended on 8 November 2022 had not been paid.
The tribunal also determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimants were entitled to redundancy payments. The table of sums due recorded gross awards of unpaid wages, holiday pay and redundancy pay for each claimant: Mrs Norris £3,061.50, £2,778.22 and £15,702.50; Miss Tuttle £411.60 and £135.32; Mrs Fryer £276.24, £555.24 and £8,287.20; Mrs Hurdle £392 and £259.77; Mrs Bentick-Hill £193.50, £240.34 and £1,158.30; and Mr Draper £205.12 and £5,400. The judgment stated that the claimants were responsible for any tax or National Insurance on the gross sums.
The claims for notice pay were not well-founded and failed. The written judgment record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 to 8 November 2022 inclusive. Gross sums for each claimant were set out in the table rather than as a single figure for the claim type. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaints well-founded because holiday accrued but untaken at the date employment ended on 8 November 2022 had not been paid. Gross sums for each claimant were set out in the table. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 the tribunal determined that the claimants were entitled to redundancy payments. The judgment listed separate amounts for each claimant in the table. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimants' claims for notice pay were not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,057
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.