Case 1804408/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Westerman v TS Travel Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804408/2021
- Decision date
- 3 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Westerman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent asked for a postponement by email shortly before the 2pm hearing, but the tribunal refused it and proceeded in the respondent's absence. The claimant attended in person and relied on a payslip showing the final sums he said were due but had not been paid.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that his written contract, when he started work, referred only to recovery of overpayments and did not authorise deductions for damage to vehicles. It also accepted that any agreement to reimburse the respondent's expenses arising from the accident was signed only after the accident had occurred.
The tribunal held that section 13(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant any later agreement or consent could not authorise deductions for conduct or events that had already happened. It therefore found that the deductions were unauthorised and awarded the claimant £703.89 for basic wages and £374.22 for accrued but untaken holiday entitlement, making a gross total of £1,078.11.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction in respect of basic wages. | Upheld | — | £704 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction in respect of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £374 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,078
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 13(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.