Case 3201690/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Lovel v Grey Shield Security Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201690/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Lovel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by telephone on 10 November 2020 before Employment Judge Moor. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal upheld the claim for unlawful deduction of wages and ordered the respondent to pay £3525.30. It accepted the pay figures reflected in Mrs Walker's WhatsApp message of 21 April 2020 for January to March 2020, totalling £3045.28 net, and found that the claimant had also worked during his final month of employment but had been paid only £1601.48, leaving a further £480.02 due.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the January to March pay figures in Mrs Walker's WhatsApp message of 21 April 2020 as £3045.28 net, and found that for the final month the claimant was paid £1601.48 but had worked that month and was therefore owed £480.02, making total unpaid wages of £3525.30. | Upheld | — | £3,525 |
| Holiday pay | The order at paragraph 2 states £672.62, but the appendix calculation and the overall total of £4197.94 correspond to £672.64 for accrued but untaken holiday pay outstanding on termination. | Upheld | — | £673 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,198
- 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.