Case 2402415/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Sweeney v LSGI Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402415/2023
- Decision date
- 23 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Sweeney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Liverpool on 30-31 October 2023 before Employment Judge Ainscough, sitting alone. Mr P Sweeney appeared in person and the respondent, LSGI Ltd, was represented by its director, Mr Mattison.
The tribunal upheld the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £31,040.38 gross. It also upheld the complaint of failure to pay accrued annual leave on termination of employment and ordered the respondent to pay £5,666.10 gross.
The judgment record also states that the respondent failed to provide an itemised pay statement in October 2022. No separate monetary award is recorded for that issue in the written judgment record, and no written reasons were provided in the decision notice.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint successful; respondent ordered to pay £31,040.38 gross. | Upheld | — | £31,040 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of failure to pay accrued annual leave on termination of employment successful; respondent ordered to pay £5,666.10 gross. | Upheld | — | £5,666 |
| Other | Tribunal found the respondent failed to provide an itemised pay statement in October 2022; no separate monetary award recorded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £36,706
- 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.