Case 1401860/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Nicholson v Adrian Burford — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401860/2025
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Nicholson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South West Employment Tribunal on 19 June 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made £700.00 in unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, payable gross, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, payable in the sum of £350.00 gross. The judgment records a total sum payable to the claimant of £1,035.00.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Cadney on 6 November 2025 and sent to the parties on 27 November 2025. The PDF is a single page and contains no further reasoning or legal-test discussion.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 determination following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. Judgment states the respondent made £700.00 unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, to be paid gross. | Upheld | — | £700 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 22 determination. Judgment records that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £350.00 gross. Layer 1 listing categorised this matter under Working Time Regulations; the judgment frames it as unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,035
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.