Case 1400080/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr Anthony Collett — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400080/2019
- Decision date
- 10 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Krystina-Marie Needs, did not attend the hearing. The respondent, Collett Leisure Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation), was represented by Mr Anthony Collett, whose evidence the tribunal found credible. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that CCTV footage showed the claimant had stolen money from the respondent, and the respondent assessed the amount stolen at about £4,100. The police investigated but declined to prosecute. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant’s employment contract contained a deduction clause permitting deductions on termination for sums owed to the company and losses attributable to negligence or dishonesty.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. It accepted Mr Collett’s evidence that, in the relevant holiday year, the claimant had already taken holiday in excess of her pro rata entitlement by the time of dismissal. On that basis, the claimant had no accrued holiday entitlement at termination.
The tribunal also dismissed the claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract in respect of notice pay. It accepted that the respondent would ordinarily have owed the claimant £1,386.35 net, made up of £1,100 net for November 2018 salary and £286.35 net for one week’s notice pay, but held that the respondent was entitled to deduct those sums to offset losses caused by the claimant’s dishonesty under the employment contract. All claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned November 2018 salary; respondent accepted £1,386.35 would ordinarily have been payable but withheld it because the tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant had stolen about £4,100 and the contract allowed deductions on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim concerned one week’s contractual notice pay. The tribunal held the respondent was entitled to rely on the employment contract deduction clause and offset sums due against losses caused by the claimant’s dishonesty. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim concerned accrued but unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant had already taken holiday in excess of her pro rata entitlement by the dismissal date, so there was no accrued entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.