Case 2500099/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rowbottom v Southern Asset Management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500099/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Rowbottom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 17 January 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 24 March 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,577.02 gross. It also found that the claimant's holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered £792.15. Because the respondent had failed to comply with the ACAS code of practice in relation to the claimant's unpaid wages, the tribunal applied a 10% uplift of £536.92.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment and ordered compensation of £1,056.24. The total amount payable was £6,962.33.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,577.02 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,577 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £792 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of the claimant's terms and conditions of employment and ordered compensation of £1,056.24. | Upheld | — | £1,056 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,962
- 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.