Case 6013667/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. S Connolly v Cripsey Retail Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013667/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. S Connolly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Heap, sitting alone, heard the case remotely on 6 January 2025. The tribunal amended the Respondent’s name to Cripsey Retail Limited.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant’s Working Time Regulations claim. It found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant’s wages by withholding the annual leave to which she had accrued entitlement at the date her employment terminated, contrary to regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £560.56 gross. The judgment records no separate split of that sum into different heads of loss and no additional remedy beyond that gross amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held that the Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by withholding annual leave accrued at termination, contrary to regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £561 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £561
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.