Case 1301774/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Howe v RSK Transport Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301774/2023
- Decision date
- 4 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Howe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Britton heard the case by CVP on 22 August 2023. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to give the claimant employment particulars in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the respondent to pay four weeks' pay of £4,200.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. It awarded £1,050 for arrears of pay for a week worked in hand, £1,056 for one week's notice covering 30 January 2023 to 4 February 2023, £1,470 for 7 days' holiday pay, and £270 for sleep-out payments of £30 on 9 occasions. The total ordered by the tribunal was £8,046.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to give employment particulars and ordered four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £4,200 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded £1,050 for arrears of pay, £1,056 for one week's notice, £1,470 for 7 days' holiday pay, and £270 for sleep-out payments. | Upheld | — | £3,846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,046
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.1 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.