Case 3303561/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Daniel Poole v Future Proof Technology Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303561/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Daniel Poole
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford Employment Tribunal hearing on 5 November 2024, before Employment Judge Mr. M. Salter and with the respondent not in attendance, the claimant Daniel Poole succeeded on his wage claims. The tribunal found that Future Proof Technology Limited had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered payment of £18,772.00 to the claimant.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay one week's notice pay, assessed at £1,944.39. The judgment records a total sum due to the claimant of £20,716.39, and states that the amount is to be paid without deduction and is taxable in the claimant's hands.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £18,772 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,944 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,716
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.