Case 3302771/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wallace v Qhs Plumbing Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3302771/2025
- Decision date
- 26 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wallace
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Watford, before Employment Judge Dick, considered Mr M Wallace's complaints against QHS Plumbing Limited. By consent, the respondent's name was amended to QHS Plumbing Limited. The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found not well-founded and was dismissed.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded in part. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of GBP 58.94 relating to uniform, GBP 150 relating to a phone, and GBP 442 relating to potential parking fines. The remainder of the complaint, concerning GBP 250 of unpaid wages and deductions relating to damage to the van and to replacement keys, was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant GBP 650.94, being the gross sum deducted, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld in part: unauthorised deductions of GBP 58.94 (uniform), GBP 150 (phone) and GBP 442 (potential parking fines). Remainder of the complaint (GBP 250 unpaid wages and deductions relating to damage to the van and to replacement keys) was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Upheld | — | £651 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £651
- 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.