Case 1400399/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Buckmaster v Christopher Ireland (deceased) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400399/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Buckmaster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Southampton by video on 17 May 2023 before Employment Judge Gray. The claimant appeared in person. The respondent, Christopher Ireland (deceased), did not attend and was not represented. The judgment records that the claim concerned arrears of pay, described as including unauthorised deductions of wages and holiday pay.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaint for arrears of pay against the deceased respondent could not continue pursuant to section 206 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made. The record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for arrears of pay, so far as it related to unauthorised deductions of wages, was dismissed because it could not continue against the deceased respondent pursuant to section 206 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for arrears of pay, so far as it related to holiday pay, was dismissed because it could not continue against the deceased respondent pursuant to section 206 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 206 Employment Rights Act 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.