Case 2600085/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bell v Alto Electrical Limited Heard: In Chambers on the papers — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600085/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined on the papers in chambers on 19 September 2024 by Employment Judge S Shore under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Tribunal first recorded that the correct name of the respondent is Alto Electrical Limited.
The Tribunal held that the claimant's claim of unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,038.46 gross in respect of 10.5 days' wages and £430.77 gross in respect of 2.8 days' holiday pay.
The total sum payable by the respondent to the claimant was £1,469.23 gross, without deduction of Income Tax and National Insurance. Reasons were given orally and written reasons were not provided in this record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award of £1,038.46 gross in respect of 10.5 days' wages. | Upheld | — | £1,038 |
| Holiday pay | Award of £430.77 gross in respect of 2.8 days' holiday pay. Listed by gov.uk under 'Written Pay Statement' but the judgment characterises this sum as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £431 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,469
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.