Case 1401531/2020 · Employment Tribunal
MICHAEL WITHERSPOON v Thames Valley Specialist Products Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401531/2020
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MICHAEL WITHERSPOON
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 11 December 2020, before Employment Judge David Hughes, Michael Witherspoon succeeded in his claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered Thames Valley Specialist Products Limited to pay £2,293.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to comply with its duty under s38 of the Employment Act 2002 and ordered a further payment of £1,538.46. The respondent's contractual claim failed. The total award recorded by the judgment was £3,831.46.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £2,293. A further £1,538.46 was ordered separately under s38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £2,293 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to comply with its duty under s38 of the Employment Act 2002 and ordered this further sum. | Upheld | — | £1,538 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contractual claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,831
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.