Case 6000482/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hughes v Intesa Communications Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000482/2025
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 6 January 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made on the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,471.20 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,142.45 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £6,613.65 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Rayner on 30 October 2025 and sent to the parties on 25 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,471.20 gross. Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £4,471 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,142.45 gross. Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £2,142 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,614
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.