Case 1400029/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Maher v Newquay Divers Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400029/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Maher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the South-West Region Employment Tribunals on 03 January 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £10,836.78 Net. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,386.48 Net. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,357.59 Net.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £15,580.85 in total. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Roper, dated 9 December 2024, and sent to the parties on 06 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; award stated as Net. | Upheld | — | £10,837 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment; award stated as Net. | Upheld | — | £3,386 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; award stated as Net. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £1,358 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,581
- 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.