Case 1601000/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lewis Courtney v Total Group Building Services LImited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601000/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bromige Representation
- Venue
- Wales ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lewis Courtney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in the Wales Employment Tribunal, heard on 2 March 2023 before Employment Judge J Bromige. The Respondent did not attend. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages by failing to pay the Claimant the correct wages between 11 and 22 April 2022. The Claimant had worked 82 hours at £15.00 per hour gross, was entitled to £1,230.00 gross, had been paid £480.00, and was therefore owed £750.00 gross.
The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Claimant had been employed from 5 January 2022 to 22 April 2022 and had accrued 8 days of holiday which were untaken. On the figures used by the Tribunal, the daily rate was £120.00 gross and the weekly rate £600.00 gross, producing an award of £960.00 gross. It further found that the Respondent failed to pay one week’s notice pay, in breach of contract, and awarded £600.00 gross.
On statutory paperwork, the Tribunal found a failure to provide written particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996 and awarded two weeks’ pay under s.35 EA 2002 and Schedule 5, capped by s.227 ERA 1996 at £571.00 per week, giving £1,142.00. It also made a declaration that the Respondent failed to provide a pay statement under s.8 ERA 1996, but made no monetary order under s.12(4) ERA 1996 for that failure. The total award was £3,452.00 gross, the recoupment provisions did not apply, and the Tribunal recorded that the sums for unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay and breach of contract were awarded gross and that the Claimant would be responsible for any tax or employee national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction of wages for the period 11 April 2022 to 22 April 2022. The Tribunal found the Claimant worked 82 hours at £15.00 per hour, was contractually entitled to £1,230.00 gross, had been paid £480.00 on 19 April 2022, and was therefore owed £750.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £750 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Tribunal found the Claimant accrued 8 untaken days between 5 January 2022 and 22 April 2022, using a daily rate of £120.00 gross and weekly rate of £600.00 gross, giving £960.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £960 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay notice pay, described as a breach of contract. The award was 1 week’s pay, calculated at £600.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment required by s.1 ERA 1996. The Tribunal awarded two weeks’ pay under s.35 EA 2002 and Schedule 5, capped by s.227 ERA 1996 at £571.00 per week, totalling £1,142.00. | Upheld | — | £1,142 |
| Other | The Tribunal made a declaration that the Respondent failed to provide a pay statement under s.8 ERA 1996, but made no order under s.12(4) ERA 1996 for any sum in respect of that failure. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,452
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.35 EA 2002 and Schedule 5
- s.227 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.12(4) ERA 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.