VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Worker Wins Unlawful Deductions and Holiday Pay Case at Employment Tribunal

Case No. 6036608/2025 · Judge Comfort

📌 In brief

A worker won a case against their employer at the Employment Tribunal. The tribunal ruled in favour of the worker on issues of unlawful wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide necessary employment documentation. This decision highlights the importance of employers adhering to statutory requirements regarding wages and holidays.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must comply with statutory requirements for wages, holidays, and employment documentation.

Topics

unlawful deductionsholiday pay

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully claimed unlawful wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant successfully argued that the employer unlawfully deducted wages, failed to provide statutory holiday pay, and did not supply written particulars as required by law. The Employment Judge ordered compensation for these breaches.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 6036608/2025 1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Heard at:

[COMPANY]

On:

13 April 2026

Before:

Employment Judge Comfort

Representatives

For the Claimant: [redacted] For the Respondent: [redacted]

1. The Claimant’s complaint of unlawful deductions from wages is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £9,200.00.

2. The Claimant’s complaint of unpaid statutory holiday pay is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £4,964.61.

3. The Claimant’s complaint of failure to provide statutory written particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded. The Tribunal makes an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in the sum of £1,601.68.

4. The Claimant’s complaint concerning payslip and P45 irregularities is well-founded, but the Tribunal makes no separate financial award, all relevant sums having been addressed through other heads of claim.

5. The Claimant’s claim regarding the Respondent’s failure to auto-enrol him into a workplace pension scheme is dismissed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. Any such complaint lies within the jurisdiction of the [NAME].

Case Number: 6036608/2025 2

6. The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the total sum of: £15,766.29 (Fifteen thousand seven hundred and sixty-six pounds and twenty-nine pence) (Note The sums awarded are gross. Any liability for income tax or National Insurance contributions rests with the Claimant.)

Employment Judge Comfort

Dated: 21 April 2026

Note

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 All 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.

📊 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

  • Employer must cover reasonable legal costs if claimant successfully pursues a case.
  • Employer must pay notice period wages for unjustified termination.
  • Employer must provide written statement of employment particulars to comply with statutory requirements.
  • Employer cannot dismiss an employee without fair and justifiable reasons under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
  • Employer cannot make unauthorised deductions from an employee's wages without lawful justification.
  • Employer must compensate for breaches of contract regarding notice pay and written statements.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal ruled in favour of the worker on issues of unlawful wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal found in favour of the worker because the employer failed to comply with statutory requirements regarding wages, holidays, and employment documentation.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and Working Time Regulations 1998 were key provisions used in this case.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The employer's failure to comply with statutory requirements for wages, holidays, and employment documentation was central to the decision.

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

The decision was in favour of the worker.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If an employer fails to comply with statutory requirements, workers may be entitled to compensation and other remedies.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing breaches of statutory requirements likely played a key role in the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is advisable to seek legal 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.