Case 1402939/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Hoyle, Consultant — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402939/2019
- Decision date
- 29 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 November 2019 at Bodmin, Employment Judge N J Roper gave a judgment by consent in the claims between Mr Mark Chapman and Go Jute Limited. The tribunal recorded that the claimant succeeded in his unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay him the gross sum of £484.77 within seven days.
The judgment also records that the claimant's remaining claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, but it does not specify those remaining claims individually in the extracted text. The respondent's employer's contract claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the respondent. The tribunal made no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £484.77 within seven days. | Upheld | — | £485 |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, but it does not itemise those claims individually. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's employer's contract claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £485
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.