Case 1300044/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Billington v Pro Repair Telford Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1300044/2023
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Billington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a Response within the relevant time limit. On that basis, the tribunal found that Pro Repair Telford Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr H Billington’s wages and ordered the respondent to pay him £2,333.33 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Billington’s holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £484.74 for that claim. The judgment stated that the total sum payable was £2,818.07 and that the listed hearing was cancelled. It also noted that Mr Billington was responsible for any tax, employee national insurance, or pension contributions on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal, proceeding under Rule 21 in default of a Response, found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,333.33. | Upheld | — | £2,333 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal, proceeding under Rule 21 in default of a Response, found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £484.74. | Upheld | — | £485 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,818
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.