Case 2303606/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Adam Carr (Respondent’s director) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303606/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South before Employment Judge Tueje, heard the claim on 4 May 2023. The claimant, Ms Kerry Reynolds, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Adam Carr, the respondent’s director. The judgment records two complaints only: unauthorised deductions from pay and holiday pay.
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay well-founded. It held that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s pay in respect of the period 1 July 2022 to 2 July 2022. The claimant was awarded the agreed gross sum of £654.00 for that deduction.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded. It held that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s pay by failing to pay holiday pay, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,786.73.
The judgment does not record any further findings, legal tests, or apportionment of the award beyond those two sums. Written reasons were not provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the decision.
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 pay for the period 1 July 2022 to 2 July 2022 and ordered payment of the agreed gross sum of £654.00. | Upheld | — | £654 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from pay by failing to pay holiday pay and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,786.73. | Upheld | — | £1,787 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,441
- 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.