Case 1403466/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B McGrath v Howards Of Hayling Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403466/2020
- Decision date
- 11 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Rayner Date recorded that the respondent, Howards Of Hayling Ltd, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. The tribunal ordered payment to Mr B McGrath of the net sum of £5,999.99. The judgment does not set out additional reasoning on that issue beyond the order itself.
The tribunal also found that Mr McGrath was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,690. The judgment records the award but does not provide further findings on the redundancy calculation or any separate dismissal claim. The total monetary sum recorded by the judgment is £8,689.99.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 net sum of £5,999.99 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,690. | Upheld | — | £2,690 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,690
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.