Case 1400015/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Nicholls v Cambria Automobiles (South East) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400015/2022
- Decision date
- 12 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Nicholls
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Nicholls brought claims against Cambria Automobiles (South East) Limited for an additional statutory redundancy payment, an unlawful deduction from wages, and wrongful dismissal. The hearing took place at Southampton by CVP on 2 September 2022 before Employment Judge Self, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondent represented by counsel.
The Tribunal held that the Claimant's application for an additional statutory redundancy payment was successful in part and awarded £3,161.45 in respect of that claim. It also declared that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £61.30 for that deduction.
The claim for wrongful dismissal, described as notice pay / PILON, was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The total sum payable by the Respondent was £3,222.75, to be paid within 14 days of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Claimant's application for an additional statutory redundancy payment was successful in part, and £3,161.45 was awarded in respect of that claim. | Upheld | — | £3,161 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal declared that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of £61.30. | Upheld | — | £61 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim of wrongful dismissal (notice pay / PILON) was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,223
- 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.