Case 6004231/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Griffiths, counsel For the v Ms S Richards, litigation consultant — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004231/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Griffiths, counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal at London Central, before Employment Judge F Spencer, heard the case on 13 September 2024. It found that the Claimant's complaint in respect of holiday pay succeeded. The Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £1,431.18, representing 9 days' pay.
The Tribunal also found that, when the proceedings were begun, the Respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the Claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It considered it just and equitable to make an award equal to four weeks' gross pay and, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, ordered payment of £2,572.
The total payable by the Respondent was recorded as £4,003.18.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal held the complaint in respect of holiday pay succeeded and ordered payment of £1,431.18, described as 9 days' pay, under regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,431 |
| Other | The Tribunal found that, when the proceedings were begun, the Respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It made an award of four weeks' gross pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, quantified at £2,572. | Upheld | — | £2,572 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,003
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 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.