Case 6003118/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Woodhouse v Airflow Cooling Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003118/2025
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Woodhouse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Woodhouse presented his claim to the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 29 January 2025. The respondent, Airflow Cooling Ltd, did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. Those findings were recorded together in the judgment, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross amount of £2,445.
The hearing listed for 9 June 2025 was cancelled. The judgment does not separate the award between the two findings, and it does not record any further remedy components such as interest or compensation beyond the gross sum ordered to be paid.
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 wages. The judgment does not split the £2,445 gross award between this head and the holiday entitlement finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The judgment does not apportion the £2,445 gross award between this head and the wages deduction finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,445
- 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.