Case 3304612/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Lindemann v Kingsman Haulage Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304612/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Lindemann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Lindemann presented his claim in the South-East Employment Tribunal on 2 May 2024. Kingsman Haulage Limited did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Hutchings determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that Kingsman Haulage Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages. It ordered the Respondent to pay £630 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £1,750 for that element. The judgment does not record any additional remedy beyond those sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £630 gross. | Upheld | — | £630 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,750. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,380
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.