Case 2308958/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Smith v Your Price Window Sales Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2308958/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. On that basis, the tribunal made findings on the papers rather than after a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made two months of unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £7,047.00 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,632.00 gross for that element. The total payable under the judgment was £8,679.00 gross, and the claimant was directed to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of the payment received under the judgment. The hearing listed for 7 March 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made 2 months' unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £7,047.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £7,047 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,632.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,632 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,679
- 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.