Case 6010011/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ementon v Justizia Technologies Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010011/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ementon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 23 March 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Phil Allen determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing. The hearing previously listed for 30 July 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The unpaid sums comprised 50% of December 2024 wages (£1,837.74), January 2025 wages (£3,675.88), and four days of February 2025 wages together with six days of unpaid holiday pay (£2,297.55), giving a total of £7,811.16. From this sum a deduction was made for the cost of a laptop, producing a net award of £7,586.16.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £7,586.16 in total. The judgment was approved on 26 June 2025 and sent to the parties on 31 July 2025, with statutory interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 accruing from 1 August 2025 if not paid within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages totalling £7,811.16 (£1,837.74 December 2024, £3,675.88 January 2025, £2,297.55 for 4 days February 2025 and 6 days holiday pay), less a £225 deduction for the cost of a laptop, leaving £7,586.16 net payable. | Upheld | — | £7,586 |
| Holiday pay | Six days of unpaid holiday pay were included within the £2,297.55 component for February 2025; the judgment did not separately quantify the holiday pay element. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,586
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.