Case 2600052/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr PR Warters v Marquees By Stuart Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600052/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr PR Warters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that Marquees By Stuart Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr PR Warters' wages and ordered the respondent to pay £10,996.92 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £13,114.79 gross. In addition, it found a further unauthorised deduction from wages because commission had not been paid, and ordered payment of £6,080 gross.
The hearing listed for 20 March 2020 was cancelled. No separate award of interest, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £10,996.92. | Upheld | — | £10,997 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £13,114.79. | Upheld | — | £13,115 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a further unauthorised deduction from wages arising from failure to pay commission and ordered payment of the gross sum of £6,080. | Upheld | — | £6,080 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,192
- 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.