Case 3323676/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr A Burgess (Consultant) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323676/2021
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 12 October 2022, before Employment Judge Alliott, the tribunal recorded that the claimant’s age discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal also dismissed the claim for failure to provide pay statements.
The tribunal found that the claim for accrued holiday entitlement not taken at the date of termination was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £753.97 net. It also found that the claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well founded and ordered payment of £818.67 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance deductions.
The written record notes that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the age discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued holiday entitlement not taken at the date of termination was found well founded; the respondent was ordered to pay £753.97 net. | Upheld | — | £754 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was found well founded; the respondent was ordered to pay £818.67 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £819 |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide pay statements. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,573
- 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.