Case 2403634/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Doyle v Lane End Developments Construction Ltd (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403634/2023
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Doyle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Leach determined the claim on the papers. The tribunal found that Lane End Developments Construction Ltd (in administration) had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J Doyle's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £242.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Doyle's accrued annual leave entitlement of 42 days. It ordered payment of the gross sum of £7,392 in respect of that entitlement.
The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any tax liabilities arising if the gross award is paid without tax being deducted at source. The separate interest notice states that interest may be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sums are not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, with the relevant decision day identified as 18 December 2023 and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £242. | Upheld | — | £242 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay accrued annual leave entitlement of 42 days and ordered payment of the gross sum of £7,392. | Upheld | — | £7,392 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,634
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.