Case 2501012/2025 · Employment Tribunal
R Shaw v Canny Clever It Service Centres Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501012/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspsen. Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
R Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an ET1 against the respondent on 11 June 2025 alleging arrears of pay and unpaid holiday on termination. No response was filed. Following case management directions and the claimant providing further information, an Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 that judgment could properly be issued without a hearing.
On the available material, the claimant was employed from 6 November 2024 to 6 April 2025 at £11.44 per hour and worked a total of 130 unpaid hours between 22 February and 6 April 2025, giving rise to wages of £1,487.20. He had also accrued 7 days of untaken holiday under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, valued at £560.56. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sums of £1,487.20 for unlawful deduction of wages and £560.56 for unpaid holiday, totalling £2,047.76.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 default judgment. Arrears of pay for 130 hours at £11.44/hour. | Upheld | — | £1,487 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 22 default judgment. 7 days accrued untaken holiday at £80.08/day under reg.30 Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £561 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,048
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- regulation 30 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.