Case 2302561/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Wolfox Coffee Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302561/2023
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje BETWEEN
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Joel Thorpe, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that the complaint in respect of holiday pay was well-founded because the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £809.97 in respect of that holiday pay claim. It recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed in its duty to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment pursuant to section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the award was increased and the respondent was ordered to pay £752.96, described as four weeks’ gross pay. The total awards in the judgment therefore came to £1,562.93.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but untaken when employment ended. | Upheld | — | £810 |
| Other | The tribunal found a failure to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and made an award under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £753 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,563
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.