Case 4100361/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Simpson v Huffmans Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4100361/2025
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge NM Hosie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 judgment in which no response had been presented to the claim. Employment Judge NM Hosie decided the case on the available material and ordered payment to the claimant, Miss H Simpson, by Huffmans Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It awarded £427.38 gross, calculated by reference to 19 days’ holidays accrued less 13 days taken, using a salary figure of £26,000 and the formula stated in the judgment.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages equivalent to one week’s pay in the gross sum of £500, calculated as £26,000 divided by 52.
The judgment further provided that the respondent could deduct income tax and employee national insurance contributions, if required by law, from the sums awarded at items 1 and 2 before payment to the claimant, provided it remitted any deductions to HMRC and gave written evidence of the deductions and remittance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment awarded £427.38 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement, calculated on 19 days accrued less 13 days taken at £26,000 ÷ 365 x 6. | Upheld | — | £427 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week's pay of £500 gross. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £927
- 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.