Case 2602598/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Patel v Wolf Spa Ltd Andrew Brown — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602598/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Britton recorded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £411. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £719.25.
The judgment states that, in light of the claimant’s letter of 11 December, all other claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The listed hearings for 14 January 2020 and 11 to 13 January 2021 were cancelled. No further reasoning or remedy breakdown was provided in the extracted text beyond the two awards.
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 an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £411. | Upheld | — | £411 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £719.25. | Upheld | — | £719 |
| Other | All other claims were dismissed upon withdrawal following the claimant’s letter of 11 December. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,130
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.