Case 3321289/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Diane Poole v Mr Manoj Kumar trading as MK Properties — 2023
- Case reference
- 3321289/2021
- Decision date
- 24 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Diane Poole
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs Diane Poole was an employee of Mr Manoj Kumar trading as MK Properties. It upheld her claim for unlawful deduction from wages because wages due in August 2022 were not paid, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,054.05 gross in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted.
The tribunal also upheld the holiday pay claim. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday, and ordered payment of £300.81.
In addition, the tribunal declared that the claimant had not been given itemised pay statements in accordance with s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996 during her employment. No compensation was ordered for that failure. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £1,354.86.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent did not pay wages due in August 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,054 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £301 |
| Other | The tribunal declared that the claimant was not given itemised pay statements in accordance with s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996, but made no compensation order for that failure. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,355
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.