Case 1807264/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr B Hendley (consultant) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1807264/2022
- Decision date
- 22 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Venus, brought claims against SAS Rope and Rail Ltd for unauthorised deductions from wages. On 22 March 2023, Employment Judge Davies heard the matter at Leeds by CVP, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr B Hendley, consultant. The tribunal recorded that, by consent, the complaint about deductions for damage to a company vehicle and for losses caused by the claimant's actions was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found well-founded the complaint about pay in lieu of four days' holiday that had accrued but not been taken when the claimant's employment ended. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £3,002.95. The judgment states that the respondent is responsible for tax, National Insurance, pension contributions and student loan repayments, most of which were detailed in the payslip dated 31 March 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the complaint concerning deductions for damage to a company vehicle and losses caused by the claimant's actions was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint concerning pay in lieu of four days' accrued but untaken holiday on termination was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,003
- 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.