Case 2302259/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Prebble v A J Engravers Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302259/2022
- Decision date
- 23 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Prebble
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Croydon Employment Tribunal hearing on 23 November 2022, Employment Judge Nash found that A J Engravers Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr S Prebble’s wages. The tribunal quantified the deductions at £1,864.24 gross and recorded that amount in the judgment.
The tribunal also considered a claim for unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations. It held that it had no jurisdiction under regulation 14 because Mr Prebble’s contract had not terminated when the claim was presented. No separate award was made for that holiday pay issue.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages in the gross sum of £1,864.24. | Upheld | — | £1,864 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations in respect of unpaid holiday pay because the claimant’s contract had not terminated when the claim was presented. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,864
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.