Case 6014701/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Ayala v Huntsman Pest Control Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6014701/2024
- Decision date
- 24 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edwards Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Ayala
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file a response, and the Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from Mr Ayala’s wages between September 2023 and May 2024. It awarded £254.23 for basic salary, £3,691.66 for unpaid overtime, £1,742.71 for visa-related deductions and £147.71 for personal use of a company vehicle. The separate complaint concerning bonuses was not well founded and was dismissed.
The notice-pay breach of contract complaint was well founded, and the Tribunal awarded £2,015.38 in damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable as Post Employment Notice Pay. The holiday-pay complaint was also well founded because the respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulations 14(2) and 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998; £1,943.51 was awarded. A further £216.45 was awarded for breach of contract concerning expenses. The energy-bills breach of contract complaint was dismissed following its withdrawal by the claimant.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to give Mr Ayala written itemised pay statements, as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, from 1 November 2023 to 5 June 2024. No separate monetary remedy was recorded for that finding, and the judgment did not state an aggregate total award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award comprised £254.23 for basic salary, £3,691.66 for unpaid overtime, £1,742.71 for visa-related deductions and £147.71 for personal use of a company vehicle. | Upheld | — | £5,836 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerning deductions in relation to bonuses was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Damages for breach of contract in relation to notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,015 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulations 14(2) and 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,944 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract concerning expenses. | Upheld | — | £216 |
| Breach of contract | The complaint concerning energy bills was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- regulations 14(2) and 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 8 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.