Case 2307043/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Mitchell v Expert Joinery Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2307043/2023
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Reed heard the case by video at London South on 27 June 2024. The tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, finding that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages paid on 2 August 2023. It ordered the respondent to pay £500, described in the judgment as the net sum deducted, and stated that the respondent was responsible for any necessary tax and national insurance so that the claimant received the full £500 net of tax.
The tribunal also upheld the complaint in respect of holiday pay. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant the full sum for holidays accrued but not taken when her employment ended. It ordered payment of £128.37, described as the gross sum deducted, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that amount. The judgment records no further written reasons because oral reasons were given at the hearing.
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 wages paid on 2 August 2023 and ordered payment of the net sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction arising from unpaid holiday pay accrued but untaken when employment ended and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £128 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £628
- 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.