Case 3303928/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Gera v Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303928/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Gera
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment in favour of the claimant on three complaints. The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded: the tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages between November 2022 and February 2023, and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £26,249.94.
The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice also succeeded, with the respondent ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £4,376.19 as notice pay. The complaint in respect of holiday pay succeeded on the basis that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended; the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £3,645.83.
The judgment was given by Employment Judge Hawksworth, sitting alone, and dated 19 March 2024, sent to the parties on 28 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages November 2022 to February 2023; gross sum £26,249.94. | Upheld | — | £26,250 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to notice; net sum £4,376.19. | Upheld | — | £4,376 |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken on termination; gross sum £3,645.83. | Upheld | — | £3,646 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,272
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure - Rule 21
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.