Case 1403101/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gifford v Albert Cottage (IOW) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403101/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gifford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 25 September 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Albert Cottage (IOW) Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,504.25 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £123.90.
The total sum ordered was £1,628.15. The hearing listed for 10 January 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,504.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,504 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £123.90. | Upheld | — | £124 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,628
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.