Case 3201350/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Ashane Wijesuriya v Print Installation Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201350/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Misra K.C.
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr. Ashane Wijesuriya
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mr Ashane Wijesuriya was a worker of the Second Respondent within the meaning of section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996, but was not an employee or worker of the First Respondent, Print Installation Limited. On that basis, the claims against the First Respondent for unauthorised deduction of wages and holiday pay were dismissed.
Against the Second Respondent, the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages succeeded. The parties agreed that the sum due was £1,225.00 gross, which included £75.00 to represent lost interest, and the Tribunal ordered payment of that sum. The claim for accrued but untaken leave also succeeded, with the parties agreeing that £75.00 gross was due.
The Tribunal also found that the Second Respondent had failed to issue a written statement of particulars when the proceedings were commenced, and had not done so since. It nevertheless exceptionally declined to make an award for that failure. The total sum payable to the Claimant by the Second Respondent was £1,300.00 gross, payable within 14 days. There was no order as to costs because the Claimant's application had been refused.
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 | Dismissed; the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the First Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed; the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee or worker of the First Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded against the Second Respondent. The parties agreed that £1,225.00 gross was owed, including £75.00 to represent lost interest. | Upheld | — | £1,225 |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded against the Second Respondent. The parties agreed that £75.00 gross was due. | Upheld | — | £75 |
| Other | The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent had failed to issue the Claimant with a written statement of particulars at the time proceedings were commenced, but exceptionally declined to make an award for that failure. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,300
- 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.