Case 2305916/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A Willan v Fast & Loose Pubs Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305916/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M A Willan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 24 October 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, and ordered payment of £52.05 net. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, and ordered payment of £1,306.58 net.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,358.63 in total. The claimant was directed to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of any payment received pursuant to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £52 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 determination. Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,307 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £52 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 determination. Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,307 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,359
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.