Case 1805347/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Evans v Timber Windows North Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805347/2021
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Evans brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages against Timber Windows North Ltd. Sitting at Leeds by CVP on 14 December 2021, Employment Judge Tegerdine held that the claim was well founded in relation to a bonus awarded on 13 August 2021. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay £1,000 gross that was properly payable to the claimant as part of that bonus.
The tribunal also considered overtime pay said to be due while the claimant was on garden leave between 23 August 2021 and 10 September 2021. It made no award for that element, finding that the claimant did not work any overtime during that period and was therefore not entitled to overtime pay. The total gross sum owed to the claimant was £1,000, payable on or before 28 December 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that £1,000 was an unauthorised deduction from wages properly payable in respect of the bonus awarded on 13 August 2021. It made no award for overtime pay claimed for the garden leave period from 23 August 2021 to 10 September 2021 because the claimant did not work any overtime during that period and was not entitled to overtime pay. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- 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.