Case 1803215/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kyren Lewis Haytack v Precedent Surveyors Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803215/2023
- Decision date
- 16 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rakhim Sitting
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kyren Lewis Haytack
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the correct identity of the respondent was Precedent Surveyors Limited. The claimant attended virtually and was unrepresented; the respondent did not appear. The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £1,190 net.
The tribunal also found the claimant’s claim for compensation related to entitlement to leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded. It found that the claimant was entitled to 6 days of accrued but untaken holiday at the time of termination and ordered payment of £399.00 gross for that entitlement, to be made net of the required deductions after tax and national insurance.
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 was well founded and ordered payment of £1,190 net. | Upheld | — | £1,190 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the claim for compensation related to entitlement to leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded. It found 6 days of accrued but untaken holiday at termination and ordered £399.00 gross, to be paid net of required deductions. | Upheld | — | £399 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,589
- 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.