Case 1806504/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Pyrah v Whats Running Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1806504/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Pyrah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 9 October 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend. Judgment was therefore given under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the substance of the claims, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages, that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. The decision records awards of £6,000 gross for unpaid wages, £2,076.89 for redundancy pay, and £553.86 gross for holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £8,630.75. No separate award components for basic award, compensatory award, interest, or injury to feelings were identified in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £6,000 gross. The respondent did not present a valid response on time and did not attend the hearing. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,076.89. | Upheld | — | £2,077 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £553.86 gross. | Upheld | — | £554 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,631
- 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.