Case 2416614/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Fisher v Natalia Jackson McElligott — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416614/2019
- Decision date
- 10 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 28 July 2020, Employment Judge McDonald heard the case with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not in attendance. The judgment records two successful money claims only. First, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £208.95 gross.
Second, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £155.23 gross. The total gross award was £364.18. The written record also includes the standard tribunal notice explaining that interest may accrue if the award is not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, which was stated to be 10 August 2020, with a stipulated rate of 8%, but no separate interest sum was 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 and ordered payment of £208.95 gross. | Upheld | — | £209 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £155.23 gross. The judgment did not label the claim by statute beyond holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £155 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £364
- 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.