Case 1401582/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Coleman v Williams Plumbing and Heating SW Ltd Heard by Cloud Video — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401582/2020
- Decision date
- 29 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Coleman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr L Coleman was wrongfully dismissed by Williams Plumbing and Heating SW Ltd and that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages in respect of damage to two doors and remedial grouting work. It also declared that he was not entitled to payment at a rate of £15.50 per hour or to two paid breaks a day.
After those declarations, and on the basis that the parties had agreed terms, the respondent was directed by consent to pay the claimant £2,759.36. The written record gives no further reasons and does not allocate that sum between the issues decided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal stated that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in respect of damage to two doors and remedial grouting work. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal declared that the claimant was not entitled to payment at a rate of £15.50 per hour or to two paid breaks a day. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,759
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.