Case 3300680/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v The Posh Hotel (M45) Ltd T/a Wentmore Developments Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300680/2023
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr Thomas Brierley, appeared in person at a hearing in Norwich by CVP on 6 July 2023. The Respondents did not attend and were not represented. Employment Judge Postle gave judgment on 31 August 2023, sent to the parties on 7 September 2023.
The tribunal found that the Claimant had suffered an unlawful deduction of wages and ordered the Respondents to pay £5,349.28. It also found that the Claimant had accrued 3.6 days of untaken holiday and ordered payment of £542.44 for that entitlement.
The tribunal further found that the Respondents had failed to provide payslips and/or a contract of employment and ordered payment of £4,583.00 in respect of that failure. The total award payable by the Respondents to the Claimant was £10,474.72.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,349 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the Claimant had accrued 3.6 days holiday untaken and orders payment of £542.44. | Upheld | — | £542 |
| Other | The judgment states the Respondents failed to provide payslips and/or a contract of employment and ordered payment of £4,583.00. | Upheld | — | £4,583 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,475
- 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.