Case 1309674/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Tooth v Hough Green Garage Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309674/2020
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Tooth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cookson, sitting alone at Birmingham by CVP on 14 May 2021, found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction of £40.88 from Mr M Tooth's wages. The judgment states that this arose because the respondent failed to pay the hourly rate that had been agreed when he was appointed.
A separate unlawful deduction from wages claim relating to a deduction for the cost of the National Contractors Vetting Scheme was not upheld and was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the judgment itself records the outcomes but not a fuller explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction of £40.88 from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the hourly rate agreed when he was appointed. | Upheld | — | £41 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's allegation concerning a deduction in relation to the cost of the National Contractors Vetting Scheme was not upheld and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £41
- across all upheld claims
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.