Case 2400964/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Harrison v Funky Owl (DAK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400964/2020
- Decision date
- 3 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Harrison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 21. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £159.90 net.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £19.30 net. The notice records that interest would apply under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the judgment sum was not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, but no interest amount was awarded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and orders payment of £159.90 net. | Upheld | — | £160 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and orders payment of £19.30 net. | Upheld | — | £19 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £179
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 21
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.