Case 6015944/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Rowley v Grange Park Bakery Ltd HELD AT: Leeds Employment Tribunal (by CVP) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015944/2025
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Rowley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claim for automatic unfair dismissal, upheld the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal, and upheld the claim for wrongful dismissal. The unpaid holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal found that, when proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It considered an award equal to four weeks pay just and equitable, made no Polkey reduction to the compensatory award, applied a 25% ACAS uplift, and recorded 5% reductions to the compensatory and basic awards, with the remainder of remedy reserved.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment describes this as the claim for automatic unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment describes this as the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid holiday pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment; the respondent was found to be in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and an award equal to four weeks pay was considered just and equitable, but no monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 122(2) of the 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.