Case 1801933/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person First v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801933/2019
- Decision date
- 19 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds on 18 September 2019, Employment Judge D N Jones found that the first respondent was the claimant's employer. The tribunal held that the first respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The judgment records the calculation as a shortfall in wages between 10 August 2018 and 19 January 2019 totalling £14,555.97 before deduction of earnings received of £320 per week, leaving £7,195.97, together with £610.74 arrears of pay for one week worked in hand.
The tribunal therefore ordered the first respondent to pay £7,806.71 for the wages claim. It also ordered payment of £1,832.22 for untaken leave of 3 weeks. The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages by the first respondent, comprising a shortfall in wages between 10 August 2018 and 19 January 2019 of £7,195.97 and £610.74 arrears. | Upheld | — | £7,807 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded £1,832.22 in respect of untaken leave of 3 weeks. | Upheld | — | £1,832 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,639
- 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.