Case 1303296/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Monks v PJD Mechanical Engineering Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303296/2022
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Panel members
- Mr Virdee, Mr Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Monks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at the West Midlands (Birmingham) Employment Tribunal from 22 to 30 April 2024, with 29 April 2024 in chambers, before Employment Judge Childe sitting with Mr Virdee and Mr Palmer. Mr A Monks appeared in person, assisted by his wife Mrs Monks; PJD Mechanical Engineering Limited was represented by counsel, Mr Quickfall.
The tribunal dismissed the substantive complaints of unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, victimisation, unauthorised deductions from wages in connection with contractual sick pay, and breach of contract. Each of those claims was recorded in the judgment as not well-founded.
Two complaints were dismissed on withdrawal: unauthorised deductions from wages in connection with unpaid expenses, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. The extracted judgment records the outcomes only and does not set out any monetary award; no remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint recorded as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint recorded as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability recorded as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint recorded as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages in connection with contractual sick pay recorded as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint recorded as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.