Case 3205539/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Lane v Pipeline Drain Solutions Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205539/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Lane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted £385.70 from the Claimant’s final instalment of wages due on 26 August 2022. That figure was calculated by reference to accrued but untaken annual leave, using 4.857 days accrued and untaken at a daily rate of £100, giving £485.70, less £100 lawfully deducted for items of property not returned.
The judgment records that the Claimant’s notice pay claim, brought pursuant to the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, was dismissed. No separate monetary award was made for that claim.
The only sum ordered to be paid was £385.70 in wages. The judgment does not record any other remedy, interest, or additional award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of £385.70 from the Claimant’s final wages, being the balance due for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave after deducting £100 lawfully withheld for items of property not returned. | Upheld | — | £386 |
| Breach of contract | The Claimant’s notice pay claim, brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £386
- 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.