Case 2204463/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Laidler Luxstone Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204463/2022
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Grewal JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal therefore entered a Rule 21 judgment and found the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages to be well-founded. It ordered Laidler Luxstone Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) to pay £12,498 gross, with the claimant liable for any tax due on that payment.
The tribunal also found the claim for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations to be well-founded. It ordered payment of £1,923.07 gross, again stating that the claimant is liable to pay any tax due on the payment. The listed hearing for 1 December 2022 was vacated and the parties did not need to attend.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as gross sum; the judgment states the claimant is liable for any tax due on the payment. | Upheld | — | £12,498 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as gross sum under the Working Time Regulations; the judgment states the claimant is liable to pay any tax due on the payment. | Upheld | — | £1,923 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,421
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.