Case 2409527/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Holland v Gorilla Retail Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409527/2022
- Decision date
- 14 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brady Representation
- Venue
- Manchester ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Holland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss P Holland brought a wages claim against Gorilla Retail Limited at Manchester Employment Tribunal. The respondent was represented by its director and had not filed an ET3. Employment Judge Brady heard the case on 2 March 2023 and gave oral reasons at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim was well-founded. It held that, in breach of section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondent had deducted holiday pay from the claimant's wages without her authorisation.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,176.42 gross. The judgment states that the total amount payable was £2,176.42 and that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sum awarded. The separate notice on the judgment explains the tribunal interest regime, but no separate interest sum was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim well-founded and found that holiday pay had been deducted from the claimant's wages without authorisation, contrary to section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,176 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,176
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.