Case 1403766/2021 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v Sol Attendance Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403766/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. Employment Judge Cadney sat alone at Bristol.
The tribunal found the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £570.43. It also found that the claimant had suffered financial losses consequent on the failure to pay those sums and awarded £100 under s24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found the claimant's claim for unpaid holiday pay well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £153.85.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £570.43 for unlawful deduction of wages and a further £100 for financial losses consequent on failure to pay those sums under s24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £670 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid holiday pay and awards £153.85. | Upheld | — | £154 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £824
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £100
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.