Case 6003928/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Megan Cloet v Champdog Films Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003928/2026
- Decision date
- 22 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Megan Cloet
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMegan Cloet presented her claim against Champdog Films Limited in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 28 January 2026. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Leach decided that a determination could properly be made 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 £891.33 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement and awarded £107.58 gross. The total award was £998.91, payable gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax and National Insurance due.
The judgment was approved on 22 July 2026 and sent to the parties on 2 September 2026. The hearing listed for 22 September 2026 was cancelled. The accompanying interest notice specified interest at 8% per annum from 3 September 2026, with no interest payable if the award was paid in full within 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross award. | Upheld | — | £891 |
| Holiday pay | Gross award for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £108 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £999
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
- Section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.