Case 2303071/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Watson v Designer Wood Flooring Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303071/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 31 August 2022 and the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore entered judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,666 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £466.25.
The claim for a redundancy payment failed. The tribunal stated that an employee must work continuously for an employer for at least 2 years to be eligible for statutory redundancy pay, and that requirement was not met. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,865.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £6,997.25 in total and cancelled the hearing listed for 23 February 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,666 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,666 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £466.25. | Upheld | — | £466 |
| Redundancy | The claim for a redundancy payment failed because statutory redundancy pay requires at least 2 years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,865. | Upheld | — | £1,865 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,997
- 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.