Case 2200653/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Draper-Wright v Dominic Hill, Director of The Pool (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200653/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Draper-Wright
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 5 August 2019, Employment Judge Brown entered a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr C Draper-Wright against Dominic Hill, Director of The Pool (UK) Limited. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £6,500 gross.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £312.50 gross. In addition, it ordered £2,700 for consequential financial loss pursuant to s24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that a Final Hearing would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £6,500 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £312.50 for failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £313 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,513
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.