Case 6001991/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J. Reid v Royal Hotel TLK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001991/2025
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J. Reid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Massarella heard the case at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 17 September 2025. The Claimant, Mr J. Reid, appeared in person and the Respondent, Royal Hotel TLK Limited, was represented by Mr C. Berman, a litigation consultant.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim in respect of accrued but untaken holiday on withdrawal, and found the wrongful dismissal claim not well-founded and dismissed it. The claim of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded in respect of £1,822.26 for the November 2024 pay period and £906.72 for the December 2024 pay period.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the total sum of £2,728.98 gross, without any deductions, with the Claimant responsible for accounting to HMRC. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim in respect of accrued but untaken holiday dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded in respect of two pay periods: £1,822.26 (November 2024) and £906.72 (December 2024), totalling £2,728.98 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,728 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,728
- 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.