Case 3314420/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Shillingford Mr R Shillingford v Riptide Pools Limited t/a Hot Tub Barn — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314420/2020
- Decision date
- 28 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Shillingford Mr R Shillingford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 11 March 2022, sitting by CVP at Reading, Employment Judge S Matthews amended the respondent's name to Riptide Pools Limited t/a Hot Tub Barn and recorded the unfair dismissal claim as dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimants. The judgment does not give written reasons unless requested, and no further reasoning is set out for that disposal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the claimants the full wages due at 4 November 2020. It ordered the respondent to pay each claimant £10,000 gross, described as the total gross sum deducted. No separate breakdown of the award into statutory components was given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimants. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages because the respondent failed to pay the full wages due at 4 November 2020. It ordered the respondent to pay each claimant £10,000 gross, being the total gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £10,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- 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.