Case 2401440/2025 · Employment Tribunal
C Pritchard B Webb v Hoptimistiq Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401440/2025
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Pritchard B Webb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 1 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claims under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the available material. The tribunal did not address an unfair dismissal complaint in the judgment; the matters adjudicated were unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to provide itemised pay statements, breach of contract in respect of notice, unpaid holiday, and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
For C Pritchard, the tribunal found unauthorised wage deductions of £396.93 (made up of an hourly-rate shortfall, unpaid training time and unpaid tips), awarded £115.54 as damages for one week's statutory notice, £91.52 for unpaid holiday calculated at 12.07 percent of hours worked, and £231.08 (two weeks' pay) under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for the failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. No further award was made in respect of the itemised pay statement failure because the shortfall was already reflected in the wages award. The total for C Pritchard was £835.07.
For B Webb, on the same basis, the tribunal awarded £600.49 for unauthorised wage deductions, £163.59 for one week's statutory notice, £137.28 for unpaid holiday, and £327.18 (two weeks' pay) under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The total for B Webb was £1,228.54. Interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 is payable from 28 November 2025 at 8 percent per annum if the awards are not paid in full within 14 days of the relevant decision day (27 November 2025).
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | C Pritchard: unauthorised deductions (hours underpaid £144.43, unpaid training £127.50, unpaid tips £125.00). | Upheld | — | £397 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | B Webb: unauthorised deductions (hours underpaid £204.49, unpaid training £221.00, unpaid tips £175.00). | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Other | C Pritchard: failure to give written itemised pay statements (ERA 1996 s.8). Shortfall accounted for in wages award; no further sum awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | B Webb: failure to give written itemised pay statements (ERA 1996 s.8). Shortfall accounted for in wages award; no further sum awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | C Pritchard: dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of 1 week's statutory notice. | Upheld | — | £116 |
| Breach of contract | B Webb: dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of 1 week's statutory notice. | Upheld | — | £164 |
| Holiday pay | C Pritchard: unpaid holiday entitlement (8 hours x £11.44). |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,064
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.8
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- 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.