Case 2603651/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sherry v Lets Talk Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603651/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sherry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed issued a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr M Sherry on three monetary heads. The tribunal found that Lets Talk Solutions Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £9,241.16 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £969.25 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £2,846.23. The three monetary orders total £13,056.64.
The judgment also recorded that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to award pension contributions that had been deducted but not paid into the pension fund.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £9,241.16. | Upheld | — | £9,241 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £969.25. | Upheld | — | £969 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,846.23. | Upheld | — | £2,846 |
| Other | The tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to award pension contributions that had been deducted but not paid into the pension fund. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,057
- 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.