Case 1401400/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Roberts v Wave-Tricity Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401400/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol video hearing on 17 December 2021 before Employment Judge Halliday, the tribunal recorded, by consent, an order that the respondent pay the claimant £11,538.42 gross. The judgment describes that sum as 3 weeks' accrued but unpaid wages and 3 weeks' notice pay, subject to statutory deductions, with the respondent to account for any required deductions to the extent not already done so.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant for 3.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday. It ordered payment of £1,346.17 gross, subject to any necessary statutory deductions.
In addition, the tribunal found outstanding expenses due and owing and ordered the respondent to pay £1,534.57. The total of the sums ordered was £14,419.16.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay this gross sum, described as 3 weeks' accrued but unpaid wages and 3 weeks' notice pay, subject to statutory deductions. | Settled | — | £11,538 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant for 3.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday and ordered payment of this gross sum, subject to any necessary statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,346 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found outstanding expenses due and owing and ordered payment of this sum. | Upheld | — | £1,535 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,419
- 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.