Case 2408458/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lee v Creative Group Inc Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408458/2021
- Decision date
- 18 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Manchester Employment Tribunals on 14 July 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Mark Butler made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Creative Group Inc Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr J Lee's wages and ordered payment of £877.80 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £83.60.
The judgment states that both sums are gross figures, so the claimant would need to account for tax and National Insurance on receipt if those deductions were not made at source. The attached interest notice explains the 1990 Interest Order and records the stipulated rate as 8%, but no separate interest sum was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded £877.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £878 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £83.60. | Upheld | — | £84 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £961
- 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.