Case 2501333/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Hill v Tripak Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2501333/2017
- Decision date
- 22 January 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Leeds before Employment Judge Rogerson, upheld the claimant Mr T Hill's complaint that Tripak Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The judgment records that £1,096.81 was owed in wages and £30.00 in expenses, and that £207.00 had already been paid by the respondent in satisfaction of this claim. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the balance of £919.81.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's complaint that the respondent failed to pay him in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. On that claim, the tribunal ordered payment of £184.60. The judgment does not set out any separate legal tests or make any findings on discrimination or dismissal claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £919.81, reflecting £1,096.81 in wages plus £30.00 expenses, less £207.00 already paid by the respondent in satisfaction of the claim. | Upheld | — | £920 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave and ordered payment of £184.60. | Upheld | — | £185 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,104
- 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.