Case 6011242/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Hughes v Grimsby Minibuses Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011242/2025
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M.A Siddique
- Venue
- Nottingham via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Paul Hughes, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal sat in Nottingham via the Cloud Video Platform before Judge M A Siddique on 4 August 2025 and determined two complaints.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. It found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay in respect of the period 28/10/2024 to 04/02/2025 and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £525.40.
The tribunal also held that the complaint in respect of holiday pay was well-founded. It found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £443.87. The total gross sum awarded was £969.27.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from pay for the period 28/10/2024 to 04/02/2025 and ordered repayment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of the gross sum due. | Upheld | — | £444 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £969
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.