Case 6017530/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P. Anderson v Queen Mary University of London — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017530/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P. Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the Tribunal recorded that Queen Mary University of London made unauthorised deductions from Mr P. Anderson's wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £765.
The Tribunal further held that the claim of constructive unfair dismissal succeeds. It also recorded that no deduction from compensation shall be made under the Polkey principle, but the written judgment does not set out a constructive dismissal compensation figure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states by consent that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday and shall pay £765. | Upheld | — | £765 |
| Constructive dismissal | Judgment states that the claim of constructive unfair dismissal succeeds and that no deduction from compensation shall be made under the Polkey principle, but it does not state a compensation figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £765
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey principle
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.