Case 6021264/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Shaw v Yortech Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021264/2025
- Decision date
- 11 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr M Shaw was employed by Yortech Ltd between 6 January and 28 February 2025. The respondent did not attend the hearing, which was held at Leeds by CVP on 11 August 2025 before Employment Judge Tegerdine sitting alone.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract were well founded. On the wages claim, the tribunal recorded that £3,333.34 was properly payable for one month's salary for February 2025 and that a further £693.00 was due for 4.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday pay for the period of employment.
On the contract claim, the tribunal awarded £881.97 for reasonable expenses incurred by the claimant in connection with the employment, which had been notified to the respondent but not reimbursed. The tribunal stated that the total gross sum due was £4,908.31 and directed payment on or before 25 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages well founded. The award under this head comprised £3,333.34 for one month's salary for February 2025 and £693.00 for 4.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £4,026 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim well founded and ordered payment of £881.97 for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the employment and notified to the respondent but not reimbursed. | Upheld | — | £882 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,908
- across all upheld claims
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.