Case 3322534/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Alvery Etc. Ltd 3322534/2021 — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322534/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the full merits hearing and was not represented. The tribunal struck out the response and recorded that the claimant had been employed by the respondent as a Bakery Assistant from 2 December 2020 to 1 July 2021.
The claim was for unlawful deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay. The respondent's response had said the parties had agreed the amounts owed and that repayment was being made at £100 per week, with less than £1,000 outstanding. The claimant denied receiving such sums, and the tribunal noted that the respondent had produced no evidence of an agreement about the sums due or of payments made in partial settlement.
The claimant was not able at the hearing to set out full details of the amounts said to be owed. The tribunal therefore directed him to provide the information to the respondent and the tribunal, with the respondent to have time to comment, after which Employment Judge Ord would calculate the sums due on paper or at a further remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had suffered unlawful deductions from wages, with the amount to be determined separately on paper or at a further remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had unpaid accrued holiday pay, with the amount to be determined separately on paper or at a further remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.