Case 2601065/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Adamson v WAT Specialist Transport Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601065/2023
- Decision date
- 17 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Adamson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response in time and did not attend the hearing. Judgment was entered under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 after service had been effected at the respondent's registered address.
The tribunal held that WAT Specialist Transport Limited made an unlawful deduction from Ms J Adamson's wages by failing to pay statutory sick pay for the period 28 December 2022 to 30 June 2023. The respondent was ordered to pay £3,063.20, subject to the usual payroll deductions due.
Ms Adamson also contended that she should be paid holiday, but that point did not succeed because it was not part of the claim served on the respondent and was not sufficiently particularised for consideration at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages because statutory sick pay was not paid from 28 December 2022 to 30 June 2023. The award was £3,063.20, subject to the usual payroll deductions due. | Upheld | — | £3,063 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said this contention did not succeed because it was not part of the claim served on the respondent and was not sufficiently particularised to be considered at the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,063
- 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.