Case 2408562/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Bancroft v The Vic Dukinfield Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408562/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mcdonald Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Bancroft
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judgment states that a determination could properly be made on the papers. The only respondent named in the judgment is The Vic Dukinfield Ltd.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It found that the respondent had not paid one week in hand in August 2022 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £220.60.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for holiday pay. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £590.52, calculated as 62.16 hours at £9.50 per hour.
The judgment includes a notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 stating that the relevant decision day was 20 March 2023, the calculation day was 21 March 2023, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum if the award remained unpaid after the applicable period. No separate interest sum is quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of one week in hand in August 2022. | Upheld | — | £221 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded 62.16 hours at £9.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £591 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £811
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.