Case 2401219/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Hickin v Ashton Construction (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401219/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Batten determined the claim on the papers. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £614.64 net.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,167.36 gross. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning beyond those findings and awards.
A separate interest notice stated that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest if not paid within 14 days after the written judgment was sent to the parties, with the relevant decision day identified as 8 July 2020 and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal Rule 21 judgment: respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the net sum of £614.64. | Upheld | — | £615 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal Rule 21 judgment: respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,167.36. | Upheld | — | £1,167 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,782
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.