Case 1600994/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MS CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Mr Henry (professional representative) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600994/2022
- Decision date
- 4 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MS CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS (COUNSEL) FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, finding that unpaid wages, unpaid notice pay and unpaid holiday pay were made out. It also allowed the claimant's complaint that the respondent breached its duty to provide written particulars of employment.
The respondent's contract claim was dismissed. The judgment ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,731.57 in total, made up of £451.57 for wages, £600.00 for notice pay, £480.00 for holiday pay and £1,200.00 for breach of duty to provide written particulars. The respondent was entitled to deduct tax and employee's national insurance contributions from the wage, notice pay and holiday pay sums, and the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance & Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages comprising unpaid wages (£451.57), unpaid notice pay (£600.00) and unpaid holiday pay (£480.00). | Upheld | — | £1,532 |
| Other | Complaint that the Respondent breached its duty to provide written particulars of employment; the tribunal awarded £1,200.00. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's contract claim was not made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,732
- 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.