Case 2404557/2023 · Employment Tribunal
P Lloyd v Definition Retail Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404557/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
P Lloyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, it determined the case without a substantive defended hearing and recorded the claimant as P Lloyd and the respondent as Definition Retail Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,916.66. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £882.14.
The judgment notice accompanying the decision records the relevant decision day as 26 September 2023, the calculation day as 27 September 2023, and the stipulated interest rate as 8% per annum. It also states that no interest is payable if the sums are paid in full within 14 days after the decision was sent to the parties, but no separate interest figure was set out in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,916.66. | Upheld | — | £1,917 |
| Holiday pay | Default judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found that the claimant's holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered payment of £882.14. | Upheld | — | £882 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,799
- 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.