Case 6003804/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Williams v Aris Flooring Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003804/2025
- Decision date
- 12 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Leith, sitting alone via CVP at a hearing at which the respondent did not attend, found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in September and October 2024 totalling £3,971.39 (comprising £238 in September and £3,733.39 in October made up of four weeks' net pay £1,710.68, commission £1,374 and bonus £648.71).
The respondent was also held to be in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant and ordered to pay £427.67 (one week's net pay) as damages, and to pay £1,556.65 for accrued but untaken annual leave (18.2 days at £85.53 net per day) and £2,000 for failure to provide a written statement of terms (four weeks' gross pay). The total award is £7,955.71.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions in September 2024 (£238) and October 2024 (£3,733.39: four weeks' net pay £1,710.68, commission £1,374, bonus £648.71). | Upheld | — | £3,971 |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal: damages of one week's net pay. | Upheld | — | £428 |
| Holiday pay | 18.2 days accrued but untaken annual leave at £85.53 net per day. | Upheld | — | £1,557 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms - four weeks' gross pay (s.38 Employment Act 2002 implied). | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,956
- 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.