Case 6008562/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Whitston v La Planta Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008562/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Whitston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Leith heard the case at Croydon (via CVP) on 21 February 2025. The Claimant appeared in person; the Respondent did not attend and had not presented a response. The Tribunal upheld complaints of breach of contract, failure to pay accrued but untaken annual leave on termination, and unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of both tips and pension contributions.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £3,751.95, comprising £2,025 for breach of contract (notice pay), £1,392.19 for accrued but untaken annual leave, £151.77 for unpaid tips, and £182.99 for deductions made in respect of pension contributions after the Claimant had opted out of the Respondent's pension scheme.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,025 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. | Upheld | — | £1,392 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions in respect of tips. | Upheld | — | £152 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deductions purportedly for pension contributions after the Claimant had opted out of the Respondent's pension scheme. | Upheld | — | £183 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,752
- 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.