Case 2402346/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Tetlow v Aesthetics Web Design Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402346/2020
- Decision date
- 3 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Tetlow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Slater issued the judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal found that Aesthetics Web Design Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J Tetlow's wages by failing to pay him for all work done, and ordered payment of £948 net. It also found an unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to holiday entitlement and ordered £196.14 gross for that head of claim.
The tribunal further found that Mr Tetlow was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £327 net in damages. The judgment noted that this figure was based on the claimant's gross pay because it was likely to be taxed on receipt as Post Employment Notice Pay. The combined awards totalled £1,471.14, and the attached interest notice stated that unpaid sums would attract interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, recorded as 3 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for failing to pay the claimant for all work done; ordered net sum of £948. | Upheld | — | £948 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded at £327 net, noted as based on gross pay because it was likely to be taxed on receipt as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £327 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for failing to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; ordered gross sum of £196.14. | Upheld | — | £196 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,471
- 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.