Case 3323190/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Martimer v Oliver Hurren (Oliver James Estates of East Anglia) — 2026
- Case reference
- 3323190/2021
- Decision date
- 30 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Martimer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Postle found that the respondent, Oliver Hurren (Oliver James Estates of East Anglia), had made unauthorised deductions from Mr A Martimer’s wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £145.50 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £615.21 for holiday pay. No other claims, reasons, or disputed findings are set out in the extracted judgment text.
The judgment records no separate liability analysis beyond those findings and does not identify any discrimination issues, dismissal claims, or other remedy components. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment is £760.71.
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 unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £145.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £146 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £615.21. | Upheld | — | £615 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £761
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.