Case 6022320/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Steele v Haskett Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022320/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Iman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Steele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Iman determined the case on the papers under rule 60 following a hearing by CVP at East London Hearing Centre on 12 May 2025. The claimant, Mr A Steele, appeared in person; the respondent, Haskett Ltd, was represented by Mr Pal with Mr Walldren (Director) also present.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £15,120. The judgment itemises the sum as pay in lieu of notice of £3,120, four days of wages owed of £800, holiday pay of £1,200, and statutory redundancy of £10,000.
The judgment as supplied is brief and does not set out separate reasons, legal tests, or findings of fact beyond the order itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unlawful deduction of wages well-founded. The awarded sum of £15,120 is itemised in the judgment as PILON £3,120, 4 days of wages owed £800, holiday pay £1,200, and statutory redundancy £10,000. The judgment frames all components within the single unlawful deduction complaint rather than adjudicating separate holiday pay or redundancy claims. | Upheld | — | £15,120 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,120
- 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.