Case 1406036/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cameron Harfield-Cluett v Jpc Capital Property Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406036/2023
- Decision date
- 12 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cameron Harfield-Cluett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Cameron Harfield-Cluett brought complaints against JPC Capital Property Ltd for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay. The hearing took place by CVP at Southampton Employment Tribunal on 29 May 2024 before Employment Judge Hay, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not attending.
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. It held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages between February 2023 and September 2023, meaning that not all wages owed had been paid. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum deducted, assessed at £839.90, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that amount.
The holiday pay complaint was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record does not set out detailed reasons for that dismissal, but it records the outcome as part of the judgment and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £840 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £840
- 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.