Case 3313569/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v CJB Ltd — 2023

Case reference: 3313569/2022
Decision date: 13 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

CJB Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked for the respondent, a construction company, from 4 July 2022 to 12 September 2022 as an apprentice electrician. The respondent did not file a response or attend the hearing. Employment Judge Anderson accepted the claimant's evidence in full, including the terms and conditions, the email evidence from his manager Charlie Blowers, and the claimant's account that he was paid £80 per day for the first two weeks and then £90 per day after an agreed increase linked to an additional travel burden.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Unpaid wages for the first week (£400) and the final two weeks and one day (£980); the tribunal found no lawful basis for this deduction.	Upheld	—	£1,380
Unlawful deduction from wages	The respondent deducted 20% from nine weeks of pay said to be for tax, but the sums were not paid to HMRC.	Upheld	—	£800
Holiday pay	Payment in lieu of 6.5 days' annual leave at a daily rate of £90 under the Working Time Regulations 1998.	Upheld	—	£585
Breach of contract	One week of statutory notice pay awarded because the claimant had no contractual entitlement to notice pay and had worked for less than two years.	Upheld	—	£450

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,215; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.