Case 1804742/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Williams v Safe Bright Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804742/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Davies heard the case by CVP at Leeds on 24 October 2023. The respondent did not attend. The judge was satisfied that the respondent had notice of the hearing because the notice of hearing was sent with the claim and the respondent had responded to the claim.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not say the wages had been paid. Its apparent defence was that it could not afford to pay the wages, which the tribunal said was not a valid defence. The judge therefore proceeded with the hearing in the respondent's absence.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages/breach of contract in respect of the claimant's wages, holiday pay and sick pay for May, June and July 2023 was found well-founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2,211.72.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment treated this as a single complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages covering unpaid wages, holiday pay and sick pay for May, June and July 2023. The award was not split between heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment also described the complaint as one of breach of contract in relation to the same unpaid wages, holiday pay and sick pay for May, June and July 2023. The award was not split between heads. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,212
- 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.