Case 2300438/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Powale v Mistvale Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300438/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Date
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Powale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs D Powale brought claims against Mistvale Limited for an unauthorised deduction from wages and for failure to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. The respondent did not attend the hearing, which was conducted by CVP before Employment Judge C M Macey on 6 October 2022. The respondent name was amended to Mistvale Limited.
The tribunal held that the unauthorised deduction from wages claim was well-founded and awarded the claimant £91.52, described as the total gross sum deducted. It also held that the claim for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded and awarded £198.00, described as the gross sum due. The written record states that reasons had been given orally and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the total gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £92 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found a failure to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of the gross sum due. | Upheld | — | £198 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £290
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 30 of the 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.