Case 1303418/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person with support from interpreter Ms L Lui-Braham v Real Clean Midlands Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303418/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person with support from interpreter Ms L Lui-Braham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the correct name of the Respondent was Real Clean Midlands Ltd and dismissed claims against Mr Karl Douglas. It also noted that earlier identical cases, numbers 1303490 and 1303491/2022, were withdrawn at the Claimants’ request and that the case then proceeded under numbers 1303418 and 1303419/2022.
The Claimants’ complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of outstanding salary payments owed was found well-founded. The Respondent was ordered to pay the First Claimant £615.13 gross and the Second Claimant £579.51 gross.
The Claimants’ complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday pay was also found well-founded. The Respondent was ordered to pay the First Claimant £1,058.10 gross and the Second Claimant £1,254.86 gross. The judgment records no separate award for interest, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of outstanding salary payments owed was found well-founded. The First Claimant was awarded £615.13 and the Second Claimant £579.51. | Upheld | — | £1,195 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday pay was found well-founded. The First Claimant was awarded £1,058.10 and the Second Claimant £1,254.86. | Upheld | — | £2,313 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,508
- across all upheld claims
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.