VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employment Tribunal Rules Unauthorised Wage Deductions Invalid

Case No. 2500560/2025 · Judge L Robertson

📌 In brief

In a case heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal, an employee successfully claimed unauthorised wage and holiday pay deductions from their employer. The judge ruled that the employer must not make such deductions, awarding the claimant compensation for both issues.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must not make unauthorised deductions from wages or fail to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay.

Topics

unauthorised wage deductionholiday pay

Provisions

s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996reg 3 Working Time Regulations 1998

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully claimed unauthorised wage and holiday pay deductions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant successfully claimed unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay. The Employment Judge ruled that the employer must not make such deductions, awarding £628.24 for wages and £95.79 for holiday pay.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 2500560/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Newcastle Employment Tribunal (via CVP)

On:

28 April 2026

Before:

Employment Judge L [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:

Wages

1. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in respect of the period 26 February 2025 to 4 May 2025.

2. The respondent shall pay the claimant £628.24, which is the gross sum deducted, less any applicable deductions for tax and National Insurance.

Holiday Pay

3. The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended.

4. The respondent shall pay the claimant £95.79, which is the gross sum deducted, less any applicable deductions for tax and National Insurance.

Approved by:

Employment Judge L [NAME]

18 May 2026

Notes Summary reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written summary reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the [NAME]. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:

www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • An employer cannot make unauthorised deductions from wages or fail to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay.|An employer must provide written itemised pay statements and cannot treat an employee unfavourably due to their disability.|An employer must not make unauthorised deductions from an employee's wages without lawful justification.|An employer must make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee if it is clear that an aspect of their work affects them adversely due to their disability.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Claims are dismissed if they have no reasonable chance of success and do not comply with procedural rules.|An employer is not required to make reasonable adjustments or avoid discriminatory practices if the claimant's allegations are not substantiated by evidence.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision decided that an employer cannot make unauthorised wage and holiday pay deductions.

Who was involved?

An employee (the claimant) brought the case against their employer (the respondent).

How did the court decide, and why?

The court ruled in favour of the claimant because the employer failed to comply with employment laws regarding wage deductions and holiday pay.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and Working Time Regulations 1998 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant argued that the employer made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay for accrued but untaken holiday pay.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing unauthorised wage deductions and unpaid holiday pay should seek legal advice to understand their rights.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence is mentioned, but typically payslips and employment contracts are crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is highly recommended to consult with a qualified solicitor for advice on such cases.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.