Case 1406557/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G. Appleford v House & Co Property Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406557/2020
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G. Appleford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G. Appleford brought a claim against House & Co Property Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages, said to arise from a failure to pay him in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. The hearing took place on 1 April 2022 at Bristol by VHS before Employment Judge S Matthews, with the claimant not attending and the respondent represented by its director, Peter House.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been sent joining instructions by email the day before the hearing and that the clerk telephoned him twice on the afternoon of the hearing, but there was no response. The tribunal waited until 14.30 before starting. It had no information about the reason for the claimant's absence.
In deciding how to proceed, the tribunal took account of the dispute about whether holiday had been taken during the relevant period and the absence of any written submissions or evidence from the claimant in response to the respondent's assertions. Applying the overriding objective and rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal decided that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim. The judgment therefore dismissed the unauthorised deduction from wages claim without any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned an alleged failure to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.