Case 6019473/2025 · Employment Tribunal
R Finney v Eco Future Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019473/2025
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
R Finney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRule 22 default judgment by Employment Judge Aspinall following the respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge determined the matter could properly be determined under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The unauthorised deductions from wages claim was upheld in the gross sum of £3,163.67. This comprised: £2,166.67 for unpaid April 2025 wages (£26,000 p.a. / 12 months) plus £997.00 for unpaid wages 1-15 May 2025 (£26,000 p.a. / 52.14 weeks x 2 weeks).
The holiday pay claim was upheld in the gross sum of £1,000.00 representing 10 working days (2 weeks) of accrued but untaken holiday between 1 January 2025 and the termination date of 15 May 2025 (claimant entitled to 28 days p.a. accruing at 0.53 days/week; 19 weeks x 0.53 = 10.07 days, rounded to 10 days). The judgment text gives the calculation result as £997 (£489.50/week x 2) but rounds the award to £1,000. The total ordered was £4,160.67.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 22 default judgment. Unpaid April 2025 wages £2,166.67 plus unpaid wages 1-15 May 2025 of £997.00 (based on £26,000 p/a salary). | Upheld | — | £3,164 |
| Holiday pay | 10 working days (2 weeks) accrued but untaken at £489.50/week. Note: judgment shows calculation as £997 but order amount is £1,000. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,161
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.