Case 2407801/2023 · Employment Tribunal
A Finnerty v We Love Dogs Rossendale Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407801/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Finnerty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phil Allen entered judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal found that We Love Dogs Rossendale Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from A Finnerty's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £871.53 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £145.88. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax liabilities arising out of the gross award if tax is not deducted at source.
A standard notice on interest followed the judgment. It records that the relevant decision day was 22 February 2024, the calculation day was 23 February 2024, and the stipulated interest rate was 8% per annum, with no interest payable if the sums are paid in full within 14 days of the written record being sent. No separate quantified interest award is set out in the judgment text.
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 the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £871.53 gross. | Upheld | — | £872 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £145.88. | Upheld | — | £146 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,017
- 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.