Case 2202251/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Taylor v CL MGT Ltd t/a Chelsea Lodge — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202251/2022
- Decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the claimant's request for reconsideration, Regional Employment Judge Wade considered the ET1 and, because the respondent had not filed an ET3 Grounds of Resistance, determined the remaining claims without a hearing under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal found that CL MGT Ltd t/a Chelsea Lodge had unlawfully failed to pay Mr Taylor's salary for March 2022 and for the period 1 to 22 April 2022. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £3,697.22 and to account to HMRC for any tax and NI due.
The tribunal also dealt with holiday pay, but said it had no jurisdiction to award holiday pay for holiday taken within the period of unpaid wages because that would offend against the principle of double recovery. No separate monetary award was made for holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay salary to the claimant in March 2022 and for 1-22 April 2022, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,697.22 plus any tax and NI due. | Upheld | — | £3,697 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to award holiday pay for holiday taken within the period of unpaid wages, because that would offend against the principle of double recovery. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,697
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- double recovery principle
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.