Worker Wins Damages for Wage Deductions and Holiday Pay at Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
In a case heard at Nottingham via CVP on May 1st, 2026, an employment tribunal ruled in favour of the worker for unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract regarding notice periods, wrongful dismissal through redundancy and non-payment of holiday entitlements. The employer was ordered to pay damages totalling £8,381.47.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage reductions, breaches of employment contract regarding notice periods, wrongful dismissal by redundancy, and non-payment of accrued leave entitlements.
📖 What the law says
This section defines direct discrimination, stating that a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, due to a protected characteristic, A treats B less favorably than A treats or would treat others.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was awarded damages for unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract, redundancy and unpaid holiday.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant was awarded damages by the Employment Judge V Butler sitting alone, for unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract regarding notice periods, wrongful dismissal through redundancy and non-payment of holiday entitlements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 6040530/2025 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Nottingham via CVP Heard on: 1 May 2026 Before: Employment Judge V [NAME] sitting alone Appearances: Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
1. The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £2,183.33 gross.
2. The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent must pay damages to the claimant of £1,865.50.
3. The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,511.10.
4. The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and must pay the claimant £2,821.54.
5. The respondent must pay the claimant £8,381.47 in total. Approved by:
Employment Judge V [NAME] 1 May 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 06.06.2026 ..................................................................... [NAME] [NAME] ..................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written 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. Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. Recordings and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. 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: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Claimant's Complaints Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Employment Claims Dismissed by Employment Judge Lancaster
- Employment Tribunal Home Office Wins Disability Discrimination Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Discrimination Claims Against DVLA
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Claimants Not Found to Be Employees
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract Claims
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 compensate an employee for unauthorised wage reductions, breaches of employment contract regarding notice periods, wrongful dismissal by redundancy, and non-payment of accrued leave entitlements.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A worker is not considered an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they do not meet the statutory definition. Claims are dismissed if they have no reasonable chance of success and do not comply with procedural rules. An employer must provide a written statement of employment particulars as required by the Employment Rights Act 1996, but no financial remedy is awarded.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal ordered the employer to pay the worker £8,381.47 for various breaches including unauthorised wage deductions, wrongful dismissal, and failure to pay holiday entitlement.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about unauthorised wage deductions, wrongful dismissal, and failure to pay holiday entitlement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the worker because the employer breached several employment laws, including unauthorised wage deductions, wrongful dismissal, and failure to pay holiday entitlement.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the employer had breached several employment laws, leading to the need for compensation.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the worker.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also be entitled to compensation if their employer has breached employment laws.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.