Case 1403447/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ralph Hawkins v Southern Counties Liming Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403447/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ralph Hawkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing at Southampton before Employment Judge Rayner on 12 January 2021. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was held in public by video link because a face-to-face hearing was not possible during the coronavirus restrictions and the parties had consented to that arrangement.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim. It found that Southern Counties Liming wrongfully dismissed Mr Ralph Hawkins without notice and awarded him one week’s notice pay of £579.25.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay. It found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction for 3 days’ holiday pay and awarded £252.00.
The total amount payable was recorded as £831.25. The judgment does not set out any separate award for basic compensation, compensatory loss, interest, or injury to feelings, and it does not record any issue requiring a named legal test beyond the findings stated in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent wrongfully dismissed the claimant without notice and awarded one week’s notice pay. | Upheld | — | £579 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of 3 days’ holiday pay and awarded £252.00. | Upheld | — | £252 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £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.