Case 1401151/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Lee Roberts, Finance Manager — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401151/2024
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Southampton before Employment Judge Rayner on 13 December 2024, considered claims brought by Mr James Vukic against Elite Security Service Providers Ltd. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr Lee Roberts, Finance Manager.
The tribunal found that the Claimant's claim of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of mileage was well founded and succeeded. His separate claim of unlawful deduction of wages for unpaid holiday pay was not well founded and was dismissed. The tribunal further recorded that, at the point of the hearing, the Respondent had failed to provide the Claimant with a statement of main terms and conditions of employment, contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
By way of remedy, the Respondent was ordered to pay £795.20 in respect of unpaid mileage and £239.61 as compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002, representing two weeks' average pay, giving a total sum payable of £1,034.81. Written reasons were not provided as the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages in respect of unpaid mileage — well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | £795 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction of wages for unpaid holiday pay — not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of main terms and conditions of employment contrary to section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996; compensation of two weeks' average pay awarded under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,035
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.