Case 2500546/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Whitehead v Andrew McQuade — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500546/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Whitehead
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Whitehead, brought claims for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and for holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 against Andrew McQuade. The respondent was sent the ET1 but did not file a response within the time allowed.
Because the claims were undefended, the tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis of the information provided by the claimant. It found both the unauthorised deduction of wages claim and the holiday pay claim to be well-founded.
The judgment records that remedy was not decided at that stage. It states that the remedy would be determined at the hearing listed for 13 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well-founded. Liability was decided under Rule 21 because the respondent did not file a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claim for holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 to be well-founded. Liability was decided under Rule 21 because the respondent did not file a response. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.