Case 2400517/2024 · Employment Tribunal
L Lee Roberts v Easy Business Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400517/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Lee Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJudgment was entered under Rule 21 in favour of the claimant, L Lee Roberts, against Easy Business Group Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages between 25 September 2023 and 2 January 2024, had breached contract in relation to one month's notice, had breached contract in relation to unpaid mileage, and had failed to pay accrued annual leave entitlement.
The tribunal ordered gross payment of £12,187.50 for the wage deduction, £3,750 for the notice period, £120 for unpaid mileage, and £510 for accrued annual leave, making a total gross award of £16,567.50. The hearing listed for 26 September 2024 was cancelled.
The written record also included the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that the relevant decision day was 2 September 2024, the calculation day was 3 September 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages from 25 September 2023 to 2 January 2024. | Upheld | — | £12,188 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of 1 month's notice. | Upheld | — | £3,750 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of unpaid mileage. | Upheld | — | £120 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay accrued annual leave entitlement. | Upheld | — | £510 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,568
- 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.