Case 2400340/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fleming v Easylift Materials Handling Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400340/2021
- Decision date
- 18 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fleming
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 13 May 2021 in Manchester (by CVP), Employment Judge Ainscough sat alone. The claimant, Mr S Fleming, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr S Routledge, the owner of Easylift Materials Handling Ltd. Reasons were given orally and the written record records the operative decisions only.
The tribunal upheld the claim of unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £500 net. It also upheld the claim for failure to pay leave entitlement, brought by reference to the claimant’s contract of employment and regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and ordered payment of £1,216 gross.
No discrimination, dismissal, or other heads of claim are recorded in the judgment. The judgment also includes the standard notice on interest, explaining that sums awarded may carry interest if not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, but it does not quantify any interest award in this case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Successful under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £500. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Working time regulations | Successful claim for failure to pay leave entitlement, pleaded by reference to the contract of employment and regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,216 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,216 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,716
- 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.