Case 3200249/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Gavin Hosking v Keith Deeks and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200249/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Gavin Hosking
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant Gavin Hosking brought claims originally against the First Respondent Keith Deeks personally. The Tribunal found from the Claimant's evidence that he had in fact been employed by Linden Dining Limited, not by Mr Deeks personally. The First Respondent was therefore held not liable and the claims against him were dismissed; Linden Dining Limited was joined as Second Respondent and judgment was entered against it.
The Second Respondent did not appear and had no opportunity to defend the hearing. On the basis of the Claimant's evidence given on oath, the Tribunal found that the Second Respondent owed the Claimant £4,100 in total, comprising arrears of salary for 9 days worked in December 2023 (£900), pay in lieu of holidays not taken between April and December 2023 (£1,700), 12 months of pension contributions deducted from pay but not remitted to the pension provider NEST (£1,200), and compensation of 2 weeks' pay (£1,500) under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a section 1 ERA 1996 statement of employment particulars.
The Tribunal directed that the judgment be sent to the Second Respondent's registered address and noted that the Second Respondent could apply for reconsideration within 14 days if it wished to defend the claims on substantial grounds.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrear salary for 9 days of work (1st to 10th but excluding 4th December 2023). Awarded against Second Respondent (Linden Dining Limited). | Upheld | — | £900 |
| Holiday pay | Pay in lieu of holidays not taken during April 2023 - December 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,700 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 12 months' pension contributions deducted from pay by Second Respondent but never paid to pension provider NEST. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Other | Compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for Second Respondent's failure to provide a statement of employment particulars as required by section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 (2 weeks' pay). | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Other | All claims against the First Respondent (Keith Deeks) were dismissed as the Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent, not the First Respondent personally. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,100
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 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.