Case 2301507/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Thomas v Elite Aroborists Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301507/2019
- Decision date
- 26 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Ashford
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 7 October 2019 before Employment Judge Corrigan, sitting alone at Ashford, Mr J Thomas appeared in person and Elite Aroborists Ltd did not appear and had entered no response. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded.
The respondent was ordered to pay £2,837.21, subject to the appropriate deductions for tax and National Insurance. The judgment states that this amount was made up of £2,083.33 salary for February 2019, £188.50 statutory sick pay for March 2019, and £565.38 accrued holiday pay. The written record was later corrected on 26 June 2020 under Rule 69 to fix the case number in the header; the appeal and review time limits were unchanged.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction of wages and ordered payment of £2,837.21, subject to the appropriate deductions for tax and National Insurance. The written reasons did not split this as separate claim outcomes; the sum comprised £2,083.33 salary for February 2019, £188.50 statutory sick pay for March 2019 and £565.38 accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,837 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,837
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.