Case 6019590/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Holmes v RVW Pugh Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019590/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Vincent Ryan
- Venue
- Mold
- Panel members
- Mrs D Hebb, Mrs Y Neves
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages. The judgment records that this claim was not well-founded and failed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim that the respondent subjected him to detriment on the ground that he had made protected public interest disclosures. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not include written reasons unless later requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded, failed, and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim that the respondent subjected the claimant to detriment on the ground that he had made protected public interest disclosures was not well-founded, failed, and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.