Case 1400556/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Holt v Logan Electronics Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400556/2023
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Danvers Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Holt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Exeter, before Employment Judge Danvers, heard the claim on 10 August 2023. The respondent did not attend. The judgment records two successful claims for Mr Holt against Logan Electronics Limited: an unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. It ordered payment of £1,749.96 gross, calculated as 6.5 days at £269.23 per day.
On the contract claim, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of six months' notice. It assessed the contractual loss at £35,000, described as six months' gross pay, but awarded damages of £25,000 gross because of the statutory cap. The total sum ordered by the judgment was £26,749.96 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction arose from failure to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. The award was £1,749.96, calculated as 6.5 days at £269.23 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract in failing to pay in lieu of six months' notice. Damages were assessed at £35,000, being six months' gross pay, but were reduced to the statutory cap of £25,000. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,750
- 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.