Case 1800220/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Tucker v Staffstore UK Ltd t/a SSUK Recruitment Agency — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800220/2022
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Tucker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Maidment heard the case by CVP on 11 April 2022. The respondent did not attend and no appearance was entered. The tribunal found that Staffstore UK Ltd t/a SSUK Recruitment Agency had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss M Tucker's wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement at the termination of employment.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £770.44 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, and stated that sum was to be reduced by any amount already paid to the claimant in advance of the hearing. It also ordered payment of £824.00, described as two weeks' pay, pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday entitlement accrued but untaken at termination; the order was for the gross sum less deductions for tax and national insurance, and the amount payable was to be reduced by any sum already paid in advance of the hearing. | Upheld | — | £770 |
| Other | Additional sum of two weeks' pay ordered under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £824 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,594
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.