Case 2305085/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Napier v County Windows (Heathfield) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305085/2021
- Decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Napier
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr J Napier was a worker for the purpose of section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, it upheld his claim that County Windows (Heathfield) Limited had unlawfully deducted sums due to him in respect of accrued but unpaid annual leave and unpaid commission.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £26,074.34 for accrued but unpaid annual leave within 28 days and £5,244.65 for unpaid commission within 28 days. It also recorded that, because the respondent was not in possession of an invoice for the commission, the claimant was to provide a copy to the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully deducted sums in relation to accrued but unpaid annual leave and ordered £26,074.34 to be paid within 28 days. | Upheld | — | £26,074 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages in relation to unpaid commission and ordered £5,244.65 to be paid within 28 days; the claimant was directed to provide a copy invoice because the respondent was not in possession of one. | Upheld | — | £5,245 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,319
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996
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.