Case 2410373/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Smith v Millers Citax Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410373/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr J Smith against Millers Citax Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages in the sums of £105.20 and £53.52. Those amounts were awarded to the claimant as separate wage deductions.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement on termination of employment. It ordered payment of £320 for accrued but untaken holiday. The judgment ordered payment of all sums within 14 days of the date of judgment.
The accompanying notice explained the tribunal's interest regime if the sums were not paid within 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties, but no specific interest figure was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the sum of £105.20. | Upheld | — | £105 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a further unauthorised deduction from wages in the sum of £53.52. | Upheld | — | £54 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £320 for accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £320 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £479
- 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.