Case 6011188/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Woolf v The Hairy Fig Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011188/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Woolf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Woolf brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against The Hairy Fig Ltd. The respondent did not attend the hearing, which was heard at Leeds by CVP on 14 March 2025 before Employment Judge Deeley. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal found the complaint well founded. It held that the respondent had underpaid the claimant’s wages when it paid him on 1 June 2024, and that the balance of the gross sum outstanding was £192.
The tribunal ordered The Hairy Fig Ltd to pay £192 to the claimant. It also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 found well founded; tribunal awarded the balance of the gross sum underpaid on 1 June 2024. | Upheld | — | £192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £192
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.