Case 3200413/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Lewis v Leisure Box Fitness Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200413/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yale Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Lewis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Yale, sitting alone at the East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 29 August 2024, determined claims brought by Mr D. Lewis against Leisure Box Fitness Ltd (in voluntary liquidation). The claimant was represented by Mr C. Kennedy of counsel; the respondent was unrepresented and did not attend.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the gross sum of £278.74 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. The tribunal further found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages representing holiday pay and ordered payment of the gross sum of £33.66.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £312.40. The judgment as provided does not set out reasons or reference specific legal tests beyond the orders made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £278.74. | Upheld | — | £279 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found an unlawful deduction representing holiday pay and ordered payment of the gross sum of £33.66. Framed by the tribunal as an unlawful deduction in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £34 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £312
- 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.