Case 3305131/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Saulsbury v Epoh Catering Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305131/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Saulsbury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Saulsbury, worked for Epoh Catering Limited as a delivery driver from 5 December 2019 until 27 March 2020. The tribunal found that he was not paid for the hours he worked between 24 February and 27 March 2020. The respondent, in its response, accepted that the claimant had not been paid the wages claimed, although it suggested that payment was withheld because the claimant had stolen a cash float and that he would be paid if he returned the money. The claimant said the float had been used for fuel, as had happened during his employment, and that previous fuel issues had been dealt with by agreed deductions from wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £829.21 for unpaid wages for the period 24 February to 27 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £829 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded £375.22 for accrued holiday not taken during employment. | Upheld | — | £375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,204
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Working Time Regulations 1998
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.