Case 2603007/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal upholds 2 claims against Simmonds Wakemans Development Ltd
The claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 26 November 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Adkinson decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
- Case reference
- 2603007/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Charlesworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 26 November 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Adkinson decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 29 April 2022 was cancelled.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Simmonds Wakemans Development Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr T Charlesworth’s wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,250 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £687.50 gross. No other remedy components were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £688 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,938
- 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.