Case 3304756/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Futureproof Technology Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304756/2024
- Decision date
- 12 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cambridge on 23 October 2025, Employment Judge Elliott gave a Rule 22 judgment by video with the claimant appearing in person and no appearance for the respondent. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay gross sums of £9,450 for unlawful deductions from wages for December 2023 and January and February 2024, £865.38 for accrued unpaid holiday pay, and £819.17 for overtime pay, making a total award of £11,134.55.
The written record states that oral reasons had been given and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent. The extract supplied does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the amounts awarded and the periods covered, so the summary is limited to the recorded heads of award and the total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum awarded for unlawful deductions from wages for December 2023 and January and February 2024. | Upheld | — | £9,450 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued unpaid holiday pay awarded as a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £865 |
| Other | Gross sum awarded for overtime pay; the extracted judgment does not identify a more specific statutory classification. | Upheld | — | £819 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,135
- 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.