Case 2400486/2025 · Employment Tribunal
E Golby v Lavamac Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400486/2025
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Golby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 11 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages totalling £476.11 gross, comprising £328.73 of unpaid wages for the period 18 November 2024 to 29 November 2024 and a further £147.38 (calculated as £615.38 quoted on the payslip less £468.00 already paid). The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £65.62 in respect of that claim.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £541.73 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge KM Ross on 3 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 10 September 2025, with a separate notice regarding statutory interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions: £328.73 unpaid wages from 18/11/2024 to 29/11/2024, plus £147.38 (being £615.38 quoted on payslip less £468.00 monies paid). Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £476 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; awarded £65.62. | Upheld | — | £66 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £542
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.