Case 2600034/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600034/2019
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Warwick had been employed by the respondent as a landscape gardener for about two and a half years and resigned in September 2018, with his employment ending on 25 October 2018. At the end of employment the respondent said it would deduct sums for excess holiday taken and for the cost of attendance on a training course. The tribunal found that the old contract contained a deduction clause for excess holiday, that a later contract containing an additional training repayment clause had not been agreed by Mr Warwick, and that the annual leave position had been varied by conduct so that he had 33 days' entitlement, together with three days carried over from the previous year.
The tribunal found the respondent's holiday records and payslips to be inadequate and in parts misleading. It accepted that the claimant had not been given the spreadsheet used to explain the pay calculations during employment, that the final payslip did not identify the period covered or any deduction breakdown, and that the spreadsheet showed zero hours for the last 14 days even though the claimant had in fact worked those days. Referring to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 9 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal held that the amount of any excess leave could not be identified with sufficient certainty and that the contractual wording about deducting 'the balance' was too ambiguous to authorise the deduction made.
On the wage calculation, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had not been paid wages between 15 September 2018 and 25 October 2018 save for £1,337.37 paid into his account. Using the agreed weekly net pay of £447.55, it calculated six weeks' wages at £2,685.30 and deducted the payment already made, leaving £1,347.93. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant in that amount net. The tribunal also observed that, if it had been necessary to determine the training deduction point, it would have held that the clause did not authorise deduction for the course fees or for the working time spent on the course.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages by withholding part of the claimant's final pay for the period 15 September 2018 to 25 October 2018. The judgment refers to proposed deductions for excess holiday and training/course-related sums, but the award was not split between heads. | Upheld | — | £1,348 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,348
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- Regulation 9 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.