Case 2400086/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S A Swaits v SG Releif Pub Management Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400086/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S A Swaits
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Phil Allen. The tribunal found that the respondent, SG Releif Pub Management Ltd, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered it to pay the gross sum of £7,470.00. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £5,625.00.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for personal belongings because it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. The hearing listed for 24 May 2024 was cancelled. The judgment was sent to the parties on 2 April 2024.
The accompanying interest notice stated that interest is payable on awards of money unless the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the relevant decision day. It gave the relevant decision day as 2 April 2024, the calculation day as 3 April 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum, but it did not calculate a separate interest figure in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £7,470.00. | Upheld | — | £7,470 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £5,625.00. | Upheld | — | £5,625 |
| Other | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim for personal belongings and dismissed that part of the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,095
- 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.