VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Unauthorised Wage Deductions and Holiday Pay: Claimant Wins in Employment Tribunal

Case No. 2500561/2025 · Judge L Robertson

📌 In brief

In this Employment Tribunal case, the claimant won against their employer who had deducted money from their wages without permission and did not pay them for holidays they were entitled to. The judge ruled that these actions by the employer were unlawful.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must not make unauthorised deductions from an employee's wages or fail to provide holiday pay for accrued but unused leave.

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 from the respondent.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant successfully argued that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from their wages and failed to provide holiday pay for accrued but unused leave, resulting in a judgment in favour of the claimant.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 2500561/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Newcastle Employment Tribunal (via CVP)

On:

28 April 2026

Before:

Employment Judge L [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 6 March 2025 to 4 May 2025.

2. The respondent shall pay the claimant £743.60, 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 £153.18, 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 claimants and respondents. 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 must not make unauthorised deductions from wages or fail to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay., An employer is required to cover reasonable legal costs when a claimant successfully pursues an employment tribunal case., An employer must provide written itemised pay statements and cannot treat an employee unfavourably due to their disability or request unnecessary sick notes., An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage deductions and breaches of contract regarding notice pay and written statements of employment part, An employer must not discriminate against or harass an employee on grounds of sex or 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 there are no grounds for such claims under applicable statutes., An employer must have reasonable grounds to dismiss an employee based on their actions and not due to racial discrimination.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Employment Tribunal decided in favour of the claimant, ruling against unauthorised wage deductions and lack of holiday pay from their employer.

Who was involved?

A worker (the claimant) brought a case against their employer (the respondent).

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the employer's actions were unlawful as they made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to provide holiday pay.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and Working Time Regulations 1998 were key in this decision.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant's argument about unauthorised wage deductions and lack of holiday pay was central to their case.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case (the claimant).

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing unauthorised wage deductions and lack of holiday pay can seek redress through an Employment Tribunal.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The specific details of the wage deductions and holiday entitlements were crucial to the case.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed under certain conditions.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for 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.