Case 1305919/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Holland v Central Mailing Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305919/2020
- Decision date
- 7 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Holland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Holland brought two automatic unfair dismissal claims against Central Mailing Services Limited. The first was under section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that claim as dismissed on withdrawal.
The second was an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, based on an asserted statutory right not to be subjected to unlawful deductions from wages. The tribunal found that claim ill-founded and dismissed it.
The written judgment states that there were no other claims brought by the claimant. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the usual rule.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, pleaded on the basis that the respondent had infringed the claimant's right not to be subjected to unlawful deductions from wages; found ill-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 101A ERA 1996
- section 104 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.