Case 6001505/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Represented himself For the v Mrs K Singh, solicitor — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001505/2024
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms J Lancaster, Mr D Eales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Represented himself For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeded by agreement. It awarded £431.38 for unpaid holiday pay and £168.28 as compensation by way of interest on the unpaid sum under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The respondent was ordered to pay those sums without deductions, with tax and national insurance to be dealt with on the holiday pay element only.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been given a statement of particulars of employment by the time proceedings were commenced. The respondent did not argue that there were exceptional circumstances, and the tribunal said it was not just and equitable to award four weeks' pay instead of two weeks' pay. It therefore awarded £717.25 for that issue.
The protected disclosure claim and the Working Time Regulations 1998 detriment claim under ss.47B and 45A Employment Rights Act 1996 did not succeed and were dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that no Acas uplift was payable on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | By agreement between the parties; interest of £168.28 was awarded separately on the unpaid holiday pay under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £431 |
| Other | The claimant had not been provided with a statement of particulars of employment by the time proceedings were commenced. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay and declined to increase the award to four weeks. | Upheld | — | £717 |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure claim was grouped with the Working Time Regulations detriment claim and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Working Time Regulations 1998 detriment claim was grouped with the protected disclosure claim and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,317
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £717
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- ss.47B/45A 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.