Case 2400806/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Smith v Aspire Developments Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400806/2022
- Decision date
- 11 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ganner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ganner, sitting alone at Liverpool on 8 August 2022, found that Aspire Developments Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr C Smith's wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,554 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Smith his holiday entitlement for untaken holiday on termination of employment. It ordered payment of £294 gross for that element. The written record states that Mr Smith is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded.
The total sum payable under the judgment was £1,848 gross. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,554 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for untaken holiday on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £294 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,848
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.