Case 6009209/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J Fisher v CRS Facility Management Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6009209/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Fisher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dunlop Date determined this case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that CRS Facility Management Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from J Fisher's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,000.40 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Fisher's accrued annual leave entitlement on termination of employment and ordered payment of £996 gross. The total amount payable under the judgment was £1,996.40.
The written judgment records that the hearing listed for 11 December 2024 was cancelled. It also included the standard interest notice stating that, if the sum is not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, interest may accrue from 6 December 2024 at 8% per annum.
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 an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,000.40 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued annual leave entitlement on termination of employment and ordered payment of £996 gross. | Upheld | — | £996 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,996
- 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.