Case 1803273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Daubney v One Pool & Spa Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803273/2023
- Decision date
- 16 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Daubney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 13 October 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £684 gross in respect of unpaid accrued holiday and £576 gross in respect of unpaid overtime. The Tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £4,166.
The hearing previously listed on 2 February 2023 was cancelled. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Maidment on 16 November 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid accrued holiday: gross sum of £684 awarded as unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £684 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid overtime: gross sum of £576 awarded as unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £576 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £4,166 awarded. | Upheld | — | £4,166 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,426
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.