Case 2305441/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sean Jenkins v Hunt Hospitality Recruitment Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305441/2019
- Decision date
- 4 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rahman
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sean Jenkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Sean Jenkins worked as a recruitment consultant for Hunt Hospitality Recruitment Limited from 20 July 2018 until summer 2019. It preferred his evidence on the disputed factual issues, including whether he had seen or signed the October 2018 contract relied on by the respondent, whether there had been any agreement that his salary was performance-related, and the dates on which he continued working in July and August 2019.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in the sum of £2,353.84 under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It rejected the respondent's case that the deductions were authorised by contract or by agreement, finding there was no reliable evidence that the claimant had consented to them.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had 3 days' untaken holiday remaining and ordered payment of £84.63 net of tax. Although the claimant had originally sought more, the tribunal accepted only the 3 days' entitlement as established on the evidence. It further declared that no written statement of employment particulars had been provided under section 1 ERA 1996, but it awarded no compensation because the claimant had been substantially aware of his terms and suffered no detriment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully deducted £2,353.84 from the claimant's wages. It rejected reliance on an October 2018 contract and on an alleged performance-related salary arrangement. | Upheld | — | £2,354 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 3 days' holiday pay, quantified at £84.63 net of tax, despite the respondent's case that no holiday remained outstanding. | Upheld | — | £85 |
| Other | The tribunal declared that the claimant had not been provided with a written statement of terms under section 1 ERA 1996, but awarded no compensation because he was substantially aware of the terms and suffered no detriment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,438
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 23 ERA 1996
- section 1 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.