Case 2401746/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Culshaw v Mr. S. Tate — 2019
- Case reference
- 2401746/2019
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Culshaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUnder Rule 21, Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan determined the claim without a hearing. The tribunal found that Mr S. Tate had made unauthorised deductions from Mr J. Culshaw’s wages and ordered payment of £724.50 gross, subject to the usual statutory deductions.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £567 gross, again subject to the usual statutory deductions. No other remedy assessment is set out in the judgment beyond those sums.
The judgment notice records the relevant decision day as 8 August 2019, with interest to run from 9 August 2019 if the sums were not paid within 14 days, at the stipulated rate of 8% under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £724.50, subject to the usual statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £725 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £567, subject to the usual statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £567 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,292
- 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.