Case 1400303/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Clark Second Claimant: Mr M Clark Third Claimant: Mr G Harrison Fourth Claimant: Mr R McCarthy v Mr Peter Watkins and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400303/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday REPRESENTATION
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr G Clark Second Claimant: Mr M Clark Third Claimant: Mr G Harrison Fourth Claimant: Mr R McCarthy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the Respondents made unauthorised deductions from the Claimants' wages in November and December 2023. The wages complaints were well-founded and the Respondents were ordered to pay gross sums of £4,336 to Mr G Clark, £4,156 to Mr M Clark, £3,986 to Mr G Harrison, and £3,958 to Mr R McCarthy, with the Claimants responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
The breach of contract complaints in relation to notice pay were well-founded. The Tribunal awarded 12 weeks' notice pay to the first three Claimants and 8 weeks' notice pay to the fourth Claimant, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the sums would be taxed as post-employment notice pay. The awards were £7,776, £7,128, £7,176, and £4,752 respectively.
Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal determined that each Claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment. The statutory redundancy awards were £19,290 to Mr G Clark, £9,801 to Mr M Clark, £19,290 to Mr G Harrison, and £7,128 to Mr R McCarthy.
The unfair dismissal complaints were well-founded, but the Tribunal found there was a 100% chance that the Claimants would have been fairly dismissed in any event. The basic award was £0 because the Claimants had already been awarded statutory redundancy entitlements, and the compensatory award was limited to one week's pay for failure to consult: £648, £594, £598, and £594 respectively. The Tribunal also found that, when proceedings began, the Respondents were in breach of their duty to provide written statements of employment particulars and awarded two weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002, with no four-week award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages in November and December 2023; aggregate of awards to the four Claimants. | Upheld | — | £16,436 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to notice pay; aggregate of awards to the four Claimants. | Upheld | — | £26,832 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payments determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996; aggregate of awards to the four Claimants. | Upheld | — | £55,509 |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaints were well-founded, but the Tribunal found a 100% chance that the Claimants would have been fairly dismissed in any event. The award was limited to one week's pay for failure to consult, with basic award of £0 because statutory redundancy entitlements were awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,434 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; two weeks' gross pay awarded under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £4,798 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £106,009
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,434
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.