Case 2223853/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S West Ms S Silva v Lainston Partners Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2223853/2024
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hopton REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S West Ms S Silva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn Mr West's claim, the respondent did not defend the complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages, holiday pay, or travel expenses. The tribunal found the wages complaint well-founded because the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in June 2024. It also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded because holiday accrued but not taken at the end of employment had not been paid.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,013.15 net for salary and holiday pay deducted from wages and £79.12 net for the amount that should have been paid into the claimant's pension in June 2024. It also found that the respondent was in breach of contract in failing to reimburse travel expenses and awarded £266.46 as damages, described as the net value to the claimant of the amount due.
The parties agreed that payment should be made within 50 days rather than the standard 14 days, because the respondent said it could not pay within 14 days. The tribunal therefore varied the standard payment period under Rule 66 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The total payable was £2,358.73 net on or before 27 November 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint well-founded. It recorded an unauthorised deduction in June 2024 and ordered payment of £2,013.15 net for salary and holiday pay deducted from wages, plus £79.12 net for the amount that should have been paid into the claimant's pension, but it did not separately apportion those sums between the wages and holiday pay complaints. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded because the respondent failed to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended. The judgment did not separately quantify this complaint within the combined award under the wages and holiday pay heading. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to reimburse travel expenses and awarded £266.46 damages, stated to be the net value to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £266 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,359
- 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.