Case 2501234/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Humble v Scott Michael Steele — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501234/2020
- Decision date
- 8 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Humble
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment, issued under Rule 21, records that Mr R Humble’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded. Employment Judge Johnson ordered Scott Michael Steele to pay £3,930.90 net in respect of wages unlawfully deducted, and stated that the respondent was responsible for any income tax and national insurance contributions on that sum.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s complaint of failure to pay accrued holiday pay was well-founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £290.04 net for accrued holiday pay, again with responsibility for any income tax and national insurance contributions. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment is £4,220.94.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £3,930.90 net, with the respondent responsible for any income tax and national insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,931 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the complaint of failure to pay accrued holiday pay well-founded and ordered payment of £290.04 net, with the respondent responsible for any income tax and national insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £290 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,221
- 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.