Case 6001791/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. P Bleach v Lainston Partners Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001791/2025
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. P Bleach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting as Employment Judge C Knowles at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 7 and 8 October 2025, found the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages well founded. The respondent had made unauthorised deductions during the periods identified in the judgment in May and late 2024.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well founded, holding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken at the date his employment ended.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £14,471.91 gross, being £15,371.91 less a £900 credit which the claimant accepted should be given. The claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on the gross sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the period 1 to 17 May 2024 and 10 October to 6 November 2024 (dates as transcribed in the judgment). Award not split per claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended; treated by the tribunal as an unauthorised deduction. Award not split per claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,472
- 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.