Case 1302761/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O SMITH v Heritage Building and Renovations Limited (formerly BuildscapeUK Commercial Limited) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302761/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O SMITH
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 13 February 2024 against BuildscapeUK Commercial Limited, later renamed Heritage Building and Renovations Limited on 4 June 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The listed hearing for 11 July 2024 was vacated.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,801.92. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £451.48. In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to give the claimant a written statement of particulars of employment and made an award of four weeks' pay, amounting to £1,048.48. The total award was £3,301.48.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,802 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £451 |
| Other | Failure to give a written statement of particulars of employment; the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,048 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,301
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.