Case 1807225/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Caleb William Dagon Wright v 2YorkshireChefs Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1807225/2024
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morgan KC
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Caleb William Dagon Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Caleb William Dagon Wright, succeeded on two claims against 2YorkshireChefs Ltd: unlawful deduction from wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and accrued and unpaid holiday pay under regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended). The judgment states that both claims were well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent company to pay the claimant the total sum of £2,153.85 net. No separate apportionment of that amount between the two heads of claim is given in the written record, and written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that it was well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued and unpaid holiday pay pursuant to regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended). The judgment records that it was well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,154
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.