Case 3323223/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bond v Auld Alliance (Henley) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323223/2021
- Decision date
- 8 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Bond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Bond brought a Working Time Regulations claim against Auld Alliance (Henley) Limited concerning entitlement to annual leave. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction because, under regulation 30(2)(b), it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the normal time limit in regulation 30(2)(a), and the claim was then presented within a further period the tribunal considered reasonable.
The tribunal found the claim for compensation relating to annual leave under regulation 14 to be well founded. It accepted that the award should reflect 4 weeks' leave carried over under regulation 13(11) and 1.3 weeks' leave accrued in the annual leave year ending on termination of employment.
On remedy, the tribunal calculated gross weekly pay at £499.84 from gross monthly pay of £2,166, multiplied that by 5.3 weeks to reach £2,649.15 gross, and then gave credit for £431.20 already paid by the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2,217.95 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under WTR regulation 30(2)(b), finding it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the time limit in regulation 30(2)(a) and that it was presented within a further reasonable period. | Upheld | — | £2,218 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,218
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- WTR regulation 30(2)(b)
- WTR regulation 14
- WTR regulation 13(11)
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.