Case 6023162/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Hall v Modern Architectural Stone Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6023162/2025
- Decision date
- 30 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed M Hall's unfair dismissal complaint against Modern Architectural Stone Limited as not well founded. It also dismissed the complaint concerning a further alleged unauthorised deduction of £398.83 from wages for February 2025 as not well founded.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for one day's accrued untaken holiday on termination of employment. It ordered the respondent to pay £146, the amount owing. Summary reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment treats unpaid holiday pay for one day's accrued untaken holiday on termination as an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £146 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerned a further alleged deduction of £398.83 from February 2025 wages and was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £146
- 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.