Case 1803305/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E W Buckle v GW Hotel Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803305/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E W Buckle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 11 June 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Maidment decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal declared that GW Hotel Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr E W Buckle's wages. It ordered payment of £3,900 for 6 weeks unpaid wages and £429 for accrued but unpaid holiday.
The Tribunal also found that Mr Buckle was dismissed without notice in breach of contract and awarded £650 as damages in lieu of 1 week's notice. The judgment records that this sum was calculated using his gross pay to reflect the likelihood that it would be taxable when received.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered £3,900 for 6 weeks unpaid wages plus £429 for accrued but unpaid holiday. | Upheld | — | £4,329 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was dismissed without notice in breach of contract. The Tribunal awarded damages in lieu of 1 week's notice, calculated using gross pay because it was likely to be taxable when received. | Upheld | — | £650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,979
- 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.