Case 2402940/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Aguilera v Football 4 Football Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402940/2019
- Decision date
- 17 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Aguilera
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Slater determined the case on the papers under Rule 21. The tribunal found that Football 4 Football Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr M Aguilera's wages and ordered it to pay the gross sum of £2,900.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £441. The complaint of breach of contract in respect of notice was dismissed because the claimant withdrew that complaint. The hearing listed for 12 August 2019 was cancelled.
The judgment records the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, including that interest may accrue if the sums remain unpaid after the relevant decision day. No separate interest amount is stated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,900. | Upheld | — | £2,900 |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract in respect of notice was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £441. | Upheld | — | £441 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,341
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.