Case 4109293/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Haddon v The Partnership of Cameron, Elaine & — 2022
- Case reference
- 4109293/2021
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Haddon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs J Haddon worked for The Portnellan Company from November 2015 as a bookkeeper under arrangements that made her an employee. It relied on the facts that she worked fixed hours, was paid an agreed hourly rate, worked personally, used the respondent's premises, equipment and uniform, and was subject to Mr Taylor's control. Applying the Ready Mixed Concrete test, it held that there was a contract of employment; if that were wrong, it said she was at least a limb B worker, so the tribunal had jurisdiction over the holiday pay claim.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had accrued but untaken annual leave when her engagement ended. It took account of the effects of Covid-19 and found that leave could be carried forward into the 2020/21 leave year, leaving 13.17 days unpaid at termination. It awarded £1,369.68 under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide written particulars at the start of employment and had failed to issue a statement of change when the claimant's hours reduced in or about 2020. On that basis it made an award of four weeks' pay, £1,248, under section 30 of the Employment Act 2002.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's explanation that it dismissed the claimant because she could not use new software. It found that the real reason for the dismissal was that she had asserted her statutory right to holiday pay, making the dismissal automatically unfair under section 104 ERA 1996. It also held that the dismissal would in any event have been unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because no procedure was followed, no discussion or investigation took place, and the claimant was simply told her services were no longer required. It awarded a basic award of £2,340 and a compensatory award of £480 after applying a 20% uplift for non-compliance with the Acas Code.
The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because the claimant was entitled to five weeks' notice under section 86 ERA 1996 and received none, so the tribunal awarded £1,560 in lieu of notice. The judgment records the overall award as £6,997.685 and states that there was no prescribed element.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.104 ERA 1996 because the claimant had asserted statutory holiday pay rights. It also said the dismissal would have been unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 in any event because no procedure was followed. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £2,340 and a compensatory award of £480 after a 20% uplift for Acas Code non-compliance. | Upheld | — | £2,820 |
| Holiday pay | Annual leave accrued but untaken was awarded under Regulation 14 WTR 1998. The tribunal allowed carry-forward because of the effects of Covid-19 and found 13.17 days remained unpaid at termination. | Upheld | — | £1,370 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to five weeks' notice under s.86 ERA 1996 and had received none. It awarded £1,560 in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,560 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent breached its duties under ss.1 and 4A ERA 1996 to provide written particulars and a statement of change. It awarded four weeks' pay of £1,248 under s.30 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,248 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,998
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,340
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £480
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.30 Employment Act 2002
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.