Case 2418303/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Quigley v Sam Niruben — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418303/2020
- Decision date
- 9 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Quigley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 Employment Tribunal judgment in Mr R Quigley's favour against Sam Niruben. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £672.00 gross, described in the judgment as two weeks' pay.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £168.75 gross for accrued but untaken annual leave of 2.5 days. The judgment itself is limited to those two monetary awards and does not set out any further reasons or separate remedy heads.
The attached notice recorded that the relevant judgment day was 9 September 2021, the calculation day was 10 September 2021, and the stipulated interest rate was 8%. No separate interest figure was stated in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £672.00, described as two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £672 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £168.75, described as accrued but untaken annual leave of 2.5 days. | Upheld | — | £169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £841
- 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.