Case 2601527/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ashcroft v The Questionable Pheonix Partnership — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601527/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ashcroft
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 6 July 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge M Butler determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 16 November 2022 was cancelled.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,281.60 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £504.00 damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £1,471.68. The total payable to the claimant was £6,257.28.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,281.60 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,282 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £504.00. | Upheld | — | £504 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £1,471.68. | Upheld | — | £1,472 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,257
- 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.