Case 2300989/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Willetts v Chefly — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300989/2022
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Willetts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 16 March 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response in time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.\n\nOn the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the periods 24 January 2022 to 26 January 2022 and 27 January 2022 to 4 February 2022. The tribunal assessed that claim at £596.44 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement of 6.75 days and awarded £1,038.49 gross for that loss.\n\nThe total sum payable was £1,634.93. The judgment also records that the claimant is responsible for any amounts owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions, and that the hearing listed for 17 November 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for 24 January 2022 to 26 January 2022 (£461.55) and 27 January 2022 to 4 February 2022 (£134.89 gross per day for 7 days), totalling £596.44 gross. | Upheld | — | £596 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement of 6.75 days and ordered payment of £1,038.49 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,038 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,635
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.