Case 1803032/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Hutchinson v UP Maintenance Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803032/2023
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rakhim Sitting
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Hutchinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs I Hutchinson brought claims against UP Maintenance Ltd. The respondent did not appear. Employment Judge Rakhim, sitting remotely at Leeds Employment Tribunal on 21 July 2023, found that the claimant’s claim of unauthorised deductions from wages was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £250.00 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claim for compensation related to entitlement to leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded. It held that she was entitled to 1.5 days of accrued but untaken holiday at the time of termination and ordered payment of £93.75 gross for that untaken entitlement to leave.
The judgment records that the figures are given gross, but payment would be made net of the required deductions for tax and national insurance. The overall payment ordered was £343.75 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages well founded and ordered payment of £250.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the Working Time Regulations claim well founded, held that the claimant was entitled to 1.5 days of accrued but untaken holiday at termination, and ordered £93.75 gross. | Upheld | — | £94 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £344
- 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.