Case 1805767/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wilson v Charrrge Limited HELD: at Sheffield (by CVP) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805767/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wilson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Charrrge Limited made an unauthorised deduction from Mr D Wilson's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £3,073.08, described as the amount of the deduction from wages earned between 4 July and 27 July 2022 inclusive.
The tribunal also ordered payment of £271.15 as gross compensation for holiday accrued but untaken as at 27 July 2022. The total sum payable was £3,344.23, to be paid on or before 14 February 2023.
Mr Wilson's complaint that he was wrongfully dismissed failed and was dismissed. The extracted record contains the dispositive findings and monetary awards only; it does not include separate written reasons beyond the note that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,073.08, described as wages earned between 4 July and 27 July 2022 inclusive. | Upheld | — | £3,073 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered payment of £271.15 as the gross amount due by way of compensation for holiday accrued but untaken as at 27 July 2022. | Upheld | — | £271 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant's complaint that he was wrongfully dismissed was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,344
- 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.