Case 1805989/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Whitehead v Extreme Cleaning Solutions Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805989/2022
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Whitehead
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal corrected the respondent’s name to Extreme Cleaning Solutions Ltd. It then found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. In consequence, it ordered the respondent to pay £1,186.66 in respect of unpaid wages and £362.95 in respect of holiday accrued but untaken as at the termination of employment.
The tribunal also made a further award of £645.24 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £2,194.85.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,186.66 in unpaid wages plus £362.95 for holiday accrued but untaken at termination. | Upheld | — | £1,550 |
| Other | Award made under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £645 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,195
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.