Case 2414954/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Worrall v Fun Tap Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414954/2019
- Decision date
- 9 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Worrall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the case on the papers under Rule 21. It found that Fun Tap Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr P Worrall’s wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £384.62.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £499.98. No other claim types or heads of loss were addressed in the judgment.
The judgment includes the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that unpaid sums may carry interest if not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day. The notice gives the relevant decision day as 6 July 2020, the calculation day as 7 July 2020, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%, but the judgment itself does not calculate any interest figure.
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 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £384.62. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £499.98. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £885
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.