Case 1804300/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Short v Luxury Leisure Parks Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804300/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Short
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 11 August 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was therefore made without a contested response from the respondent.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,107.70 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £276.92. The total ordered by the tribunal was £1,384.62.
The claimant’s application for his costs of attending the hearing was refused. The tribunal said it did not have power to award damages for that loss and that there was no basis for making a preparation time order against the respondent. The judgment also records that the respondent was not responsible for the last minute cancellation of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,107.70 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,108 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £276.92. | Upheld | — | £277 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,385
- 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.