Case 2408455/2022 · Employment Tribunal
D Jackson v Shop UK Online Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408455/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Batten determined the claim under Rule 21 because the respondent had not presented a valid response on time. The tribunal therefore made a determination on the papers rather than after a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that Shop UK Online Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £37.10 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 15 days and ordered payment of £1,018.50 gross, making a total gross award of £1,055.60.
A separate notice explained the tribunal's interest regime under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It stated that interest would be payable if the sums were not paid in full within 14 days after the decision was sent to the parties, with 6 April 2023 as the relevant decision day, 7 April 2023 as the calculation day, and an 8% per annum stipulated rate.
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 payment of £37.10 gross. | Upheld | — | £37 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 15 days and ordered payment of £1,018.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,019 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,056
- 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.