Case 3304273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Galvin (Paralegal at Wirehouse Employer Services) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304273/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Christabel Fearon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds by CVP on 12 and 19 January 2024 before Employment Judge Christabel Fearon. The claimant, David Bovekamp, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms Galvin of Wirehouse Employer Services.
The tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. It found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions in the period 31 May 2022 to 12 April 2023 and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,250.11, described as the net sum owing after deductions of tax or National Insurance.
The judgment set out the calculation as 101.64 hours at £17.95, plus 25 February 2022 at 5.28 hours at £17.95, plus 24 December 2022 at £161.54/2, less £161.54 for one day of holiday in April 2023, producing £1,838.43 gross and £1,250.11 net.
The holiday pay complaint was dismissed as not well-founded. No separate award was made in relation to that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages in the period 31 May 2022 to 12 April 2023 and ordered payment of the net sum owing after deductions of tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,250
- 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.