Case 6025765/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Abigail Gotch v Polycarbonate Xpress — 2025
- Case reference
- 6025765/2025
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Abigail Gotch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 10 July 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge L Brown determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The hearing listed for 31 October 2025 was cancelled.
On the substantive claims, the tribunal found that Polycarbonate Xpress had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay £437.16 net. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,136.75.
The total amount ordered to be paid to Abigail Gotch was £2,573.91.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £437.16 net. | Upheld | — | £437 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,136.75. | Upheld | — | £2,137 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,574
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.