Case 6008864/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Rosbery v Private Equity Insights Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6008864/2025
- Decision date
- 2 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedMr J Rosbery
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Bradford heard this matter at London South Employment Tribunal. The claimant's holiday pay complaint was well-founded: by the date of termination he had accrued 5.7 days holiday and had taken three days, leaving 2.7 days outstanding (£70,000 / 260 x 2.7 = £726.92 gross). The respondent's contractual clause permitting it to require holiday during notice fell short of regulation 15 Working Time Regulations 1998 notice requirements (per Davis v Iodem Ltd ET Case No. 2500063/21), and its counter claim for over-taken holiday was dismissed. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded: the £230 deducted from the claimant's final pay for a company laptop was not authorised in writing as required by s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge also found the respondent had failed to reimburse a taxi fare which was an authorised business expense properly and necessarily incurred under the claimant's contract, and awarded £27.63 net.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £727 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £230 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £28 |
Legal tests applied
3 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £985
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.