Case 2303327/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Owen Roberts v Newcomb Analytics Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303327/2022
- Decision date
- 29 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Owen Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge B Smith sat alone at a remote hearing on 29 March 2023. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £2,946.76 gross.
The tribunal also found the claimant's holiday pay claim well-founded and ordered £182.88 gross in respect of holiday accrued but not taken or paid on termination of employment. The notice pay claim was likewise well-founded, with an award of £114.30 gross.
In addition, the tribunal held that the complaint of a failure to provide itemised pay statements was well-founded. The written judgment does not record any separate monetary award for that complaint. The total monetary awards specified in the judgment sum to £3,243.94 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £2,946.76 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,947 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim well-founded and ordered £182.88 gross for holiday accrued but not taken or paid on termination. | Upheld | — | £183 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the notice pay claim well-founded and ordered £114.30 gross. | Upheld | — | £114 |
| Other | The complaint of a failure to provide itemised pay statements was found well-founded, but no separate monetary award was stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,244
- 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.