Case 1601878/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Griffiths v I4 Technology Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601878/2021
- Decision date
- 28 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Cardiff via CVP on 21 April 2022 before Employment Judge R Havard. Mr I Griffiths was represented by counsel and the respondent, i4 Technology Group Ltd, did not appear. The tribunal entered judgment for the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay £5,692.96.
The award was itemised as £4,363.64 unpaid wages, £290.77 unpaid holiday pay, and £1,038.45 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment, with that last figure stated to be based on three weeks of a gross weekly wage of £346.15. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The listed component amounts do not add exactly to the total stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,364 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £291 |
| Other | Award for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment, stated to be based on three weeks of a gross weekly wage of £346.15. The listed component amounts do not total the overall figure stated in the judgment exactly. | Upheld | — | £1,038 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,693
- 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.