Case 1403461/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Winch v Polgannel Solutions Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403461/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Winch
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe parties agreed that the claims against the First Respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not set out separate reasons for that disposal, and no monetary award was made against the First Respondent.
As against the Second Respondent, the Tribunal recorded that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded for the period up to 1 November 2022. The Second Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £7,560, less tax and national insurance, in respect of that claim.
The Tribunal also recorded that the claim for unpaid holiday pay was well-founded. The Second Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £989.10, less tax and national insurance, in respect of holiday pay. The total sum payable was £8,549.10, less tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claims against the First Respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal; the extract does not identify a separate cause of action for that entry. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal recorded that this claim was well-founded against the Second Respondent for the period up to 1 November 2022, with payment ordered less tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £7,560 |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal recorded that unpaid holiday pay was well-founded against the Second Respondent, with payment ordered less tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £989 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,549
- 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.