Case 2602149/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hickman v Bloodstock Bar Crew Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602149/2022
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hickman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 9 September 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's wages claim, finding that Bloodstock Bar Crew Limited had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordering it to pay £345.23 gross. It also upheld the holiday pay claim, finding that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordering payment of £41.57.
All future hearings were cancelled. The judgment records a total award of £386.80, made up of the two sums ordered on the wages and holiday pay claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £345.23 gross. | Upheld | — | £345 |
| Holiday pay | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £41.57. | Upheld | — | £42 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £387
- 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.