Case 1401045/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr St Ledger, owner — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401045/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms K.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the correct respondent was Wickham Facilities Limited and dismissed the claim against BSP Projects South Limited. On the substantive claims, it found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for December 2019 and ordered payment of £2,666.67 gross.
The tribunal also found an unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to 5 days accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment and ordered payment of £615.38 gross. The claimant's claim for car allowance, unpaid salary increase and notice pay was dismissed.
The respondent's counterclaim for payment of Solent University fees and compensation for the Lenovo ThinkPad laptop was also dismissed. The total of the claimant's successful awards was £3,282.05 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for failure to pay the claimant for December 2019. | Upheld | — | £2,667 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for failure to pay in lieu of 5 days accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £615 |
| Breach of contract | Grouped claim for car allowance, unpaid salary increase and notice pay dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's counterclaim for Solent University fees and compensation for the Lenovo ThinkPad laptop was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,282
- 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.