Case 3319955/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Eion McLoughlin v Castle Valley Films Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319955/2019
- Decision date
- 8 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Eion McLoughlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Eion McLoughlin was employed by Castle Valley Films Limited as a clapper/loader from 6 February 2019 to 6 April 2019, with pay at £180 per day and an additional £20 per day for driving duties. The tribunal found that £1,200 in wages remained unpaid at the date of termination and that the claimant was entitled to 3.3 days holiday for the period worked.
The tribunal also found that the parties had agreed the claimant would not take holiday and would instead be paid in lieu. On that basis, it held that £594 was due for holiday pay at termination. The judgment records that Castle Valley Films Limited was substituted as respondent for the named individuals and that the claim was accepted in the interests of justice.
Because no response had been presented by the due date, the tribunal entered judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It awarded the claimant £1,200 for unauthorised deduction from wages and £594 for unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The order states £1,200.00 was the gross amount. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. The reasons state the claimant was entitled to 3.3 days holiday and to payment in lieu on termination. | Upheld | — | £594 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,794
- 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.