Case 2211410/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Wigham v SBS Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211410/2023
- Decision date
- 25 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A-M Boyle
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Wigham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Wigham was employed by SBS Group Limited as Head of IT from 1 August 2022 to 14 April 2023. He was entitled to an annual salary of £40,000 payable monthly and 28 days' holiday each year. The respondent did not appear at the hearing, which was held by video before Employment Judge A-M Boyle sitting alone on 25 September 2023.
The tribunal found that, when the claimant left, the respondent owed him salary for the period 1 February to 14 April 2023. The reasons state that this unpaid salary amounted to £8,333 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant had 8 days' untaken holiday on termination and should have been paid £1,230.77 in lieu of accrued holiday entitlement.
The judgment orders the respondent to pay £9,564.10 gross to the claimant, less any tax and national insurance due, with the respondent to account to HMRC. The extracted reasons state component sums that do not exactly match the final ordered figure, so the dispositive amount has been recorded as stated in the judgment and the discrepancy noted.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment orders payment of £9,564.10 gross. In the reasons, the tribunal identifies unpaid salary from 1 February to 14 April 2023 of £8,333 gross and 8 days' untaken holiday worth £1,230.77; those component figures do not exactly total the final figure stated in the order. | Upheld | — | £9,564 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,564
- 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.