Case 1403215/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D James v Sophie Knight — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403215/2022
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lambert Representation
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely on 27 January 2023 before Employment Judge Lambert. The respondent did not enter a Response and did not attend the hearing, so the tribunal heard from the claimant and determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
The tribunal found that the claim for unpaid wages and holiday pay succeeded. It awarded the claimant £1,600 gross for 40 hours of unpaid wages at £10 per hour and £2,240 gross for 5.6 weeks of holiday pay at £400 per week, making a total award of £3,840 gross.
The claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment was dismissed as not well founded. No separate award was made for that claim. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £1,600 gross for 40 hours' unpaid wages at £10 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded £2,240 gross for 5.6 weeks' holiday pay at £400 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,240 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal said the claim for a statutory redundancy payment was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,840
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 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.