Case 1804217/2021 · Employment Tribunal
W Speight v R Brett AT A HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804217/2021
- Decision date
- 26 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
W Speight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal corrected the respondent’s name to Mr Robert Brett. On the wages issue, it found there had been no unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s last week’s wages up to 3 April 2021, payable on 7 April 2021, because the sum reflected a reconciliation shown in the final monthly pay statement dated 15 April 2021 to reimburse the employer for an overpayment across the previous 19 weeks of employment.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found the claimant had accrued 10.74 days’ holiday from the start of employment to termination but had taken 11 days’ leave, so there was no entitlement to any further payment for untaken holiday. The claims were therefore dismissed, and the tribunal made no order as to costs or preparation time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found there was no unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s last week’s wages up to 3 April 2021, because the sum reflected a reconciliation in the final monthly pay statement dated 15 April 2021 to reimburse the employer for an overpayment over the previous 19 weeks. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 10.74 days’ holiday from the start of employment to termination but had taken 11 days’ leave, so there was no entitlement to any further payment for untaken holiday. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.