Case 1400662/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Taylor v Incept Solutions Ltd and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400662/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr A Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Taylor issued his claim in the South West Employment Tribunals on 8 February 2023. The respondents did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Self Date determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the Second Respondent, Aviate by Incept, had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered payment of £2,423.10 gross on that claim. The tribunal also found that the Second Respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £173.07 in respect of that claim.
The total sum ordered payable to Mr Taylor was £2,596.17. The claims against the Third Respondent, Thomas Whiting, were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Second Respondent, Aviate by Incept, was found to have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay £2,423.10 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,423 |
| Holiday pay | The Second Respondent, Aviate by Incept, was found to have failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £173.07. | Upheld | — | £173 |
| Other | The claims against the Third Respondent, Thomas Whiting, were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant; the underlying legal basis is not specified in the extracted text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,596
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.