Claimant won £293 awarded Employment Tribunal · 4 November 2022

Unauthorised wage deductions and holiday pay: a case on written consent

A former employee won £292.92 after his employer made deductions from wages without written authorisation and failed to pay holiday pay. The employer later tried to rely on evidence it could have produced at the original hearing.

1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant worked for the respondent and had no written contract.
  • The respondent made deductions from the claimant's wages without written authorisation.
  • The parties agreed the claimant was owed £280.92 for unpaid holiday.
  • The respondent conceded at hearing that an additional hour's pay of £12 was due.
  • The total award was £292.92 for unauthorised deductions and holiday pay.

Timeline

  1. Substantive hearing

    The tribunal heard evidence from both parties. The respondent conceded the claimant was owed £280.92 holiday pay and an additional hour's pay of £12.

  2. Judgment issued

    Employment Judge Wyeth ordered the respondent to pay £292.92 for unauthorised deductions and holiday pay.

  3. Judgment sent to parties

    The written judgment and reasons were sent to the parties.

  4. Respondent applied for reconsideration

    The respondent applied for reconsideration, seeking to rely on handwritten rotas to dispute the 51 hours.

  5. Reconsideration refused

    Employment Judge Wyeth refused the application, finding no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.

The outcome

The tribunal ruled in favour of the former employee, ordering the employer to pay £292.92 for unauthorised deductions and holiday pay.

Key reasons:

  • The employer had no written contract authorising deductions from wages.
  • The employer conceded at the hearing that it owed £280.92 for unpaid holiday and an additional hour's pay of £12.
  • The employer's later attempt to introduce new evidence (handwritten rotas) was refused as that evidence was available at the original hearing.

Compensation:

  • Total award: £292.92 (gross)
    • Holiday pay: £280.92
    • Additional hour's pay: £12.00

Lessons & takeaways

  • Employers must have written authorisation from employees before making deductions from wages, otherwise the deductions are likely to be unlawful.
  • If you have no written contract, it is harder for an employer to justify deductions – keep records of any agreements in writing.
  • Concessions made at a tribunal hearing are binding – you cannot later introduce evidence that was available at the time to overturn a decision.
  • Employees can bring claims for unpaid holiday pay and other wage deductions without needing a solicitor – the process is designed to be accessible.

This case shows what can happen when an employer makes deductions from wages without a written agreement. The former employee had no written contract, and the employer had nothing in writing authorising deductions. At the hearing, the employer accepted it owed £280.92 for unpaid holiday and an extra hour's pay of £12, leading to a total award of £292.92.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer could have avoided this claim entirely by having a written contract that clearly set out any circumstances where deductions could be made. Even without a contract, the employer should have obtained the employee's written consent before making deductions. At the hearing, the employer conceded the amounts owed – but later tried to introduce handwritten rotas to dispute the hours. The tribunal refused this, noting the evidence was available at the time and the employer had chosen to concede.

Why this matters

This case is a reminder that the law on unauthorised deductions is strict. Employees do not need a solicitor to bring such claims, and tribunals will enforce the requirement for written authorisation. For employees, it shows that even small amounts – here, just under £300 – can be successfully recovered. For employers, it highlights the importance of proper documentation and the risks of making deductions without clear consent.

Similar cases