Case 1805896/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Midgley v Leychar Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805896/2021
- Decision date
- 17 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Midgley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds by video on 17 January 2022 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke. The Claimant, Miss D Midgley, appeared in person and the Respondent did not attend or represent itself.
The tribunal upheld three heads of claim. It found that the Respondent had made unlawful deductions from the Claimant’s wages in the sum of £83.25. It also found that the Respondent had failed to provide pay in lieu of untaken holiday, awarding £1,527.19 for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the Respondent had failed to provide terms and conditions of employment compliant with s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The award for that failure was stated to be four weeks’ pay, quantified at £1,440.00.
The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant a total of £3,050.44, being the sum of the three amounts awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages and awarded £83.25. | Upheld | — | £83 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the Respondent failed to provide pay in lieu of untaken holiday and awarded £1,527.19. | Upheld | — | £1,527 |
| Other | The tribunal found the Respondent failed to provide terms and conditions of employment compliant with s.1 ERA 1996 and awarded four weeks' pay of £1,440.00. | Upheld | — | £1,440 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,050
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.1 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.