Case 3310157/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fleming v Iceni Home Improvements Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310157/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fleming
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Postle therefore made a determination on the claim on the basis of the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,840.00 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £560.00. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of a further gross sum of £560.00.
The judgment records no separate award of interest or other additional remedy. The total amount ordered was therefore £2,960.00 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,840 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £560 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £560 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,960
- 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.