Case 3303982/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Nevell v Fleet Automotive Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303982/2022
- Decision date
- 3 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Nevell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent failed to present a response to the claim. On that basis, judgment was entered for the claimant, Mr J Nevell, against Fleet Automotive Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of pay for July, August, September and October 2021, and ordered payment of £3,490.88 gross. It also found unauthorised deductions of statutory sick pay for August 2021 and ordered payment of £96.35 gross.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in respect of accrued but untaken holiday and ordered payment of £415.68 gross. The judgment states that the sums are gross amounts, and that payment of the net sums will only satisfy the judgment if the respondent also pays the applicable tax and employee national insurance contributions to HMRC and confirms that it has done so.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of pay for July, August, September and October 2021. | Upheld | — | £3,491 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions of statutory sick pay for August 2021. | Upheld | — | £96 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £416 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,003
- 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.