Case 1400424/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fisher v Dijital Technologies Ltd Heard By: VHS — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400424/2022
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fisher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 2 December 2022 before Employment Judge Craft, the tribunal ordered Dijital Technologies Ltd to pay Mr S Fisher £2,068.97 for unpaid wages and £689.66 for unpaid arrears of holiday pay, subject only to deductions for National Insurance and PAYE already notified to him. It also ordered payment of £76.54 for unpaid expenses.
The written record is a short monetary judgment and does not set out separate liability reasons or named legal tests. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the judgment records the award only and does not identify the separate legal basis for the expenses sum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as unpaid wages; the order says the amount is subject only to deductions for National Insurance and PAYE already notified to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £2,069 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as unpaid arrears of holiday pay; the order says the amount is subject only to deductions for National Insurance and PAYE already notified to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £690 |
| Other | Awarded as unpaid expenses; the judgment does not state the separate legal basis for this sum. | Upheld | — | £77 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,835
- 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.