Case 2301715/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hanmore v Mr G May t/a The Brown Trout — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301715/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hanmore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 17 March 2025 before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall, the tribunal heard Mr Hanmore's claims against Mr G May t/a The Brown Trout. The respondent did not appear. The tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, finding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 to 12 January 2024.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,120, described as the gross sum deducted. It also upheld the holiday pay complaint, finding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended.
For the holiday pay complaint, the tribunal ordered payment of £448. The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on the sums awarded. The total monetary award from the two upheld complaints was £1,568.
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 in the period 1-12 January 2024 and awarded the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday accrued but untaken when employment ended and treated this as a well-founded holiday pay complaint. | Upheld | — | £448 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,568
- 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.