Case 1804849/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v L Crossland and BMS Barnsley Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1804849/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Sheffield by CVP before Employment Judge Brain, found that the claimant was employed by the second respondent, BMS Barnsley Limited, between 24 May 2023 and 8 July 2023. On that basis the first respondent, Leslie Crossland, was dismissed from the proceedings as having no legal interest in the case.
The tribunal found that the second respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,630.00, being the gross wages payable. The tribunal also found the claimant entitled to compensation for holiday accrued but untaken as at 8 July 2023, and ordered payment of £306.24 gross in holiday pay.
The total sum due to the claimant was £3,936.24, to be paid by the second respondent on or before 12 February 2024. Neither respondent attended the hearing, and the second respondent had not entered an appearance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the second respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,630.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,630 |
| Holiday pay | Compensation for holiday accrued but untaken at 8 July 2023; gross amount £306.24. | Upheld | — | £306 |
| Other | The first respondent (Leslie Crossland) was dismissed from the proceedings on the basis that he had no legal interest in the case, the claimant having been employed by the second respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,936
- 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.