Case 2300864/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sanjay Wright v Bench EG Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300864/2022
- Decision date
- 3 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mellor REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sanjay Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Bench EG Ltd made unauthorised deductions from Mr Sanjay Wright's wages by failing to pay the full amount of pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday and by failing to pay outstanding hours in January 2022. It ordered gross payments of £945.60 and £294 respectively.
A separate unauthorised deduction claim for an alleged unpaid amount of £3,366 was dismissed as not well founded. The tribunal also made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, ordering £1,368 gross.
The total gross sum payable by the respondent was £2,607.60.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction claim succeeded in respect of pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday; gross sum ordered. | Upheld | — | £946 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction claim succeeded in respect of outstanding hours in January 2022; gross sum ordered. | Upheld | — | £294 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for an alleged unpaid amount of £3,366 was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Additional compensation awarded under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,368 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,608
- 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.