Case 6013234/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Waite v Regency Oak Landscapes Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013234/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddique Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Waite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs Leanne Waite, brought claims against her former employer Regency Oak Landscapes Limited for unauthorised deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay, together with a claim arising from the respondent's failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal, sitting as Employment Judge Siddique alone at Nottingham by CVP on 16 May 2025, heard evidence from the claimant and from Mr Philip Decosimo, a director of the respondent.
On unauthorised deductions, the judge found that the claimant had established unpaid wages for three days (2 May, 17 June, 5 July and 11 July 2024) at an agreed daily rate of GBP 115.38, producing GBP 346.14, which after an overpayment of GBP 118.71 left a net deduction of GBP 227.43 owed. On holiday pay, both parties agreed 14.8 days had accrued and the payslips showed 6 days had been paid, leaving 8.8 days (GBP 1015.34) due under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claimant's application for an ACAS uplift was refused because the judge was not satisfied the WhatsApp messages relied on amounted to a grievance, and her claim for reimbursement of bank charges was not made out as causation to the unpaid wages was not established.
The respondent accepted it had failed to provide a written statement of particulars contrary to s.1 ERA 1996, and the tribunal made an award of two weeks' gross pay (GBP 1153.80) under s.38 Employment Act 2002, declining to increase the award to four weeks having regard to the respondent being a small employer of approximately three people with no separate HR function. The total gross award was GBP 2396.57.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions on 2 May, 17 June, 5 July and 11 July 2024 totalling 3 days at agreed daily rate of GBP 115.38 (GBP 346.14), offset by an overpayment of GBP 118.71, leaving GBP 227.43 gross. Rounded to nearest integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £227 |
| Holiday pay | Both parties agreed 14.8 days accrued; payslips showed 6 days paid, leaving 8.8 days at GBP 115.38 = GBP 1015.34 gross under regulation 14(2)/16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998. Rounded to nearest integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £1,015 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of main terms under s.1 ERA 1996; award of two weeks' gross pay (GBP 1153.80) made under s.38 Employment Act 2002. Not a freestanding claim type in the enum; classified as 'other'. Rounded to nearest integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,397
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
15 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 13(1) ERA 1996
- section 13(5) ERA 1996
- section 13(6) ERA 1996
- section 24(2) ERA 1996
- section 27 ERA 1996
- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Section 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.