Case 6037146/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Lake v Crazy Price Carpets Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6037146/2025
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Lake
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 8 October 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. Crazy Price Carpets Ltd was substituted as the correctly named respondent under rule 35, the Tribunal being content under rule 89 that the claim had come to the respondent's attention through service at its registered office.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £286.62 gross. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £683.76 gross.
The Tribunal noted that it had no jurisdiction to award compensation for the employer's failure to pay income tax and national insurance contributions to HMRC. The hearing listed for 27 April 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross amount awarded for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £287 |
| Holiday pay | Gross amount awarded for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £684 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £970
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- rule 35
- rule 89
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.