Case 3305935/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D.Brown v Oak Tree Reliance Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305935/2024
- Decision date
- 8 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D.Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss D.Brown, brought an unlawful deduction from wages claim against Oak Tree Reliance Ltd (in voluntary liquidation). The case was heard at Watford by CVP on 20 February 2025 before Employment Judge McNeill KC, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by a litigation consultant.
The tribunal held that the claim was well-founded and upheld it. The judgment records that the unpaid sums related to two items: holiday days taken by the claimant at the respondent's request, for which she had been underpaid, and arrears of pay for days on which she worked.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £543.40. That total was made up of £240.24 for the holiday underpayment and £303.16 for arrears of pay. The reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no separate legal test was expressly set out in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay £543.40 in total. The sum comprised £240.24 for underpaid holiday taken at the respondent's request and £303.16 for arrears of pay for days worked. | Upheld | — | £543 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £543
- 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.