Case 2204734/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Weekes v HQ London Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204734/2021
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Weekes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at London Central on 8 November 2021 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The tribunal upheld Mr R Weekes's claim that HQ London Group Limited had made an unauthorised deduction of £80 from wages for the uniform, and it also upheld his claim in respect of 6.1 hours of accrued but untaken statutory holiday, ordering payment of £54.35 net.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's separate claim for an award under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 because it found that the respondent was not in breach of s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That meant the claim for a s.38 award failed.
The judgment also recorded that the respondent's breach of s.13 ERA 1996 had one or more aggravated features, and the tribunal ordered a penalty of £100 to the Secretary of State.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for the uniform under s.13 ERA 1996; net sum of £80 awarded. | Upheld | — | £80 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken statutory holiday of 6.1 hours; tribunal cited s.13 ERA 1996 and reg. 14(2) WTR 1998; net sum of £54.35 awarded. | Upheld | — | £54 |
| Other | Claim for an award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars failed because the tribunal found no breach of s.1 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £134
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- reg. 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.