Case 2300902/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joe Massey v STR 48 Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300902/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Downs Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Joe Massey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by STR 48 Ltd as a general manager from 15 May 2021 to 22 February 2023. His claim concerned arrears of pay arising when his employment ended after his resignation, following the respondent having stopped paying his salary in full.
The respondent's response had been rejected as out of time and the respondent did not attend the hearing. The tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant and considered documents including payslips that were accessible when he was provided with his P45 but were not honoured by the respondent.
The tribunal found that the claimant was owed £1,951.98 gross for the month ending 5 February 2023 and £1,384.31 gross for two weeks worked in the following pay period. It declared the unlawful deduction of wages claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £3,336.29 gross wages. The judgment noted that any complaint about unpaid statutory sick pay was a matter for HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared the unlawful deduction of wages claim well founded and awarded gross wages. The judgment also records a complaint of unpaid statutory sick pay but states that this is a matter for HMRC, so it is not treated as an adjudicated tribunal claim. | Upheld | — | £3,336 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,336
- 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.