Case 6011891/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Whittaker v Canning Hospitality Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011891/2025
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Whittaker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 7 April 2025. The Respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Phil Allen determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing.
The Tribunal found the holiday pay complaint to be well-founded. The Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages by failing to pay him for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £537.36, with the Claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance. A separate notice was issued under article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 setting the calculation day as 3 March 2026 and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay accrued but untaken holiday on the date employment ended; £537.36 awarded. Claimant responsible for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £537 |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay accrued but untaken holiday on the date employment ended; £537.36 awarded. Claimant responsible for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £537 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £537
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.