Case 2402732/2022 · Employment Tribunal
M Ward v Trust in Tech Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402732/2022
- Decision date
- 12 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response in time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the claimant, M Ward, succeeded on two monetary claims against Trust in Tech Ltd: unauthorised deduction from wages and unpaid holiday entitlement.
For the wages claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £772.20. The judgment explains that this was calculated from gross pay of £297 per week, divided by five to give £59.40 per day, multiplied by 13 days. For the holiday claim, the tribunal ordered payment of £421.74, calculated at £59.40 per day for 7.1 days. The judgment also notes that the figures were calculated using gross pay and that statutory deductions could be accounted for before payment if necessary.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £772.20, calculated as £59.40 per day for 13 days. | Upheld | — | £772 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £421.74, calculated as £59.40 per day for 7.1 days. | Upheld | — | £422 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,194
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.