Case 1602356/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. T. Fox v LDH Plant Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1602356/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. T. Fox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21. The tribunal found that LDH Plant Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr. T. Fox's wages and had failed to pay his holiday entitlement. It recorded sums of £6,922.50 for wages and £1,810.50 for holiday pay as outstanding and due, making a total of £8,733 before any deduction for sums already paid.
The judgment also recorded that the respondent had paid £1,911.09 on account of sums due. In consequence of the findings on the wages and holiday pay claims, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr. Fox £6,821.91 subject to the usual statutory deductions. The listed hearing was cancelled because the claims succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It recorded £6,922.50 as wages outstanding and due, but the final payment order was made on the combined balance after a partial payment on account, so no separate per-claim award was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It recorded £1,810.50 as holiday pay outstanding and due, but the final payment order was made on the combined balance after a partial payment on account, so no separate per-claim award was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,822
- 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.