Case 2204160/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Matt Gardner v Gym Jam Fitness Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204160/2021
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Matt Gardner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr. Matt Gardner, brought two monetary complaints against Gym Jam Fitness Ltd: unlawful deductions from wages for 1 to 15 March 2021 and holiday pay accruing from 11 January to 15 March 2021. Employment Judge Mr. A. Tinnion sat alone at London Central Employment Tribunal by video on 14 December 2021. The judgment states that both complaints were well founded and not contested.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £1,285 in respect of unlawful deductions from wages under section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the net sum of £593.08 in respect of holiday pay under rule 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. No other liability findings or remedies are recorded in the judgment, and reasons were given orally at the hearing rather than in a written reasons judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint for unlawful deductions from wages under s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that it was well founded and not contested. | Upheld | — | £1,285 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint for holiday pay under r.14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998, accruing during 11 January to 15 March 2021. The judgment records that it was well founded and not contested. | Upheld | — | £593 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,878
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- r.14(2) 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.