Case 2501690/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Dunleavy v The Broadway Pub Company Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501690/2022
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Dunleavy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Dunleavy presented a claim on 19 October 2022 for unlawful deduction of wages under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and notice pay, but he later confirmed that he was not claiming anything in respect of notice pay. The Respondent did not present a response despite service at the address provided by the Claimant and later at its registered address.
The Tribunal determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the available material. The Claimant said he worked 40 hours a week and was paid a gross weekly wage of £480.77. He provided a breakdown of weekly pay, text messages with his former employer, and bank statements.
On that material, Employment Judge Sweeney was satisfied that wages remained due on termination. The judgment records unpaid gross salary of £480.77 for the week of 8 August 2022 and £372.11 for six hours worked in the week of 15 August 2022, and concludes that the total wages of £552.88 remained due to the Claimant and were properly payable on termination. The claim therefore succeeded and the Respondent was ordered to pay £552.88 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was presented under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant subsequently confirmed he was not pursuing notice pay. | Upheld | — | £553 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £553
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.