Case 1602958/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Clissett v U9 Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602958/2023
- Decision date
- 23 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Clissett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 30 November 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge said a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,407.02 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,354.60 gross.
The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance due. The hearing listed for 28 February 2024 was cancelled.
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 wages and ordered payment of £2,407.02 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,407 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,354.60 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,355 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,762
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.