Case 3302285/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr N Walker v Sascron Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021

Case reference: 3302285/2020
Decision date: 3 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Shore Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr N Walker

Respondent

Sascron Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Walker brought claims for unauthorised deductions of wages in respect of holiday pay and commission. The respondent accepted that he had never been paid holiday pay during his employment, and the tribunal found that no written statement of terms or relevant agreement had been provided to set a different holiday year. In those circumstances the tribunal found that his holiday year ran from 21 September, that he had accrued 28 days in the 2018/2019 year and 6 days up to the end of employment in the 2019/2020 year, and that 34 days of holiday remained unpaid.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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	Holiday pay claim under section 13 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant had received no holiday pay throughout employment, that his leave year ran from 21 September, and that 34 days remained unpaid at a gross daily rate of £170.67.	Upheld	—	£5,803
Unlawful deduction from wages	Commission claim. The tribunal found the evidence did not show an unauthorised deduction because the respondent's evidence of commission overpayment was not challenged and the net overpayment of £4,420 exceeded the unpaid commission claimed.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £5,803; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.