Case 2602639/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Holden v Premier Support Services — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602639/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Holden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Holden brought a single claim for unlawful deductions from wages against Premier Support Services Limited after working as a cleaner from 20 October 2022 to 5 September 2023. He did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal proceeded in his absence. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had made errors in calculating pay, including some hours being paid at £10.82 rather than £11.52 and errors in holiday pay, but the only claim before it was unpaid wages.
The tribunal considered the claimant’s ET1, text messages and the respondent’s payslips and found it difficult to identify the exact sum claimed. The messages referred to alleged underpayments in February to May 2023, including a figure of £167.36 in the claimant’s own calculations, but that did not match the £102.08 pleaded in the ET1. The tribunal also noted messages saying overtime could only be authorised if someone was off.
On the evidence, the tribunal found the claimant had been underpaid in April to September 2023 by £244.67 and underpaid holiday pay by £30.17, giving a total of £274.84. It found that the respondent had already paid that amount by way of back pay in September, November and December 2023. Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held the claimant had been paid in full and dismissed the claim as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Single unlawful deductions from wages claim. The tribunal found pay calculation errors and identified back pay of £274.84 for wages and holiday pay, but held the claimant had been paid in full and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 ERA 1996
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.