Case 1305990/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Sewell v Reedscare Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305990/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Platt Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Sewell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 10 October 2024 before Employment Judge Platt. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented remotely. The tribunal recorded that the respondent initially suggested the claimant had only been employed for about one month in 2024, but later accepted that he had been employed since 2017 and that, after the original employer went into compulsory liquidation, he was employed by Reedscare Group Limited. The tribunal limited its determination to matters against the respondent that post-dated the liquidation and said it could not deal with issues concerning the original employer.
On the unlawful deductions claim, the tribunal examined payslips, bank statements, timesheets and the claimant's schedule of loss. It rejected the alleged deduction for November 2023 because the December 2023 payslip and bank statement showed that he had been paid for the correct hours worked. It accepted that the respondent had failed to pay 40 hours due in January 2024, 45 hours due in February 2024, 55 hours due in March 2024 and 70 hours due in April 2024. Using the agreed hourly rate of £12.50, the tribunal found unlawful deductions totalling £2,625 gross.
For holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant worked 2,667 hours and 182 sleep-ins across the relevant 52-week period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. Applying Regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the approach in Fulton and Baxter v Bear Scotland Limited and British Gas Trading Ltd v Lock, it calculated total holiday entitlement at £3,939.97 gross. After deducting £1,337.50 gross already paid by the respondent for 107 hours of holiday, it found £2,602.47 gross remained due on termination.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been provided with written particulars of employment when employment with the respondent began. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, it awarded four weeks' pay, calculated at £641.11 per week, producing a further award of £2,564.00. The total award was therefore £7,791.47 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal rejected the alleged November 2023 deduction because the payslip and bank evidence showed the claimant had been paid for the correct hours worked. It upheld deductions for January, February, March and April 2024, including the respondent's accepted £500 for January 2024 and additional findings of £562.50, £687.50 and £875. | Upheld | — | £2,625 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay on termination was found due after applying Regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and deducting sums already paid. The tribunal calculated gross holiday entitlement at £3,939.97 and deducted £1,337.50 already paid by the respondent, leaving £2,602.47. | Upheld | — | £2,602 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment when the employment commenced and made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It awarded four weeks' pay based on £641.11 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,564 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,791
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- Regulations 13 and 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- Fulton and Baxter v Bear Scotland Limited
- British Gas Trading Ltd v Lock and another
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- sections 221-224 ERA 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.