Case 1401072/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Andrew Marran v Wartsila (Hamworthy) Water Systems Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401072/2021
- Decision date
- 1 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millard Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andrew Marran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal via CVP on 25 June 2021 before Employment Judge Millard. Andrew Marran brought two claims against Wartsila (Hamworthy) Water Systems Ltd, both framed as unlawful deduction of wages claims.
The first claim, relating to course fees, was dismissed because the claimant had withdrawn it. The second claim, relating to underpayment of holiday pay, 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 document records the outcomes without any separate written analysis.
No monetary award was made.
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| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning course fees; dismissed as withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning underpayment of holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.