Case 3302452/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Watford Apsav Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302452/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent from 10 November 2022 to 17 December 2022 and resigned because wages were not paid. Early conciliation ran from 1 February 2023 to 7 March 2023, and the claim was presented on 9 March 2023. The respondent filed a late response stating that it did not defend the claim, the response was rejected, and judgment in default was issued on 29 January 2024.
At the remedy hearing on 20 March 2024, the claimant attended and gave evidence on oath. She produced her contract and a breakdown of hours and payments, and the tribunal accepted her evidence as credible. She said she worked 158 hours at £15 per hour, giving gross pay of £2,370, and that she had been paid £560, leaving a shortfall of £1,810.
The tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay £1,810, less any deductions for tax or National Insurance, within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The reasons also record that the respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 during the period 10 November 2022 to 17 December 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in a judgment dated 29 January 2024 made under Rule 21. The remedy judgment records a payment of £1,810 less any deductions for tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,810
- 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.