Case 1404985/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Harris – 1404985/2023 Mr G Munt – 1405830/2023 v DTMC Products Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404985/2023
- Decision date
- 23 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Harris – 1404985/2023 Mr G Munt – 1405830/2023
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 21 August 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claims under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed on 12 April 2024 was cancelled.
In respect of Miss J Harris (1404985/2023), the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,340.37 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £2,000, giving a total of £4,340.37.
In respect of Mr G Munt (1405830/2023), the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £990.05 gross, being the total sum for that claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Miss J Harris (1404985/2023): unauthorised deductions from wages; £2,340.37 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,340 |
| Breach of contract | Miss J Harris (1404985/2023): dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £2,000 awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr G Munt (1405830/2023): unauthorised deductions from wages; £990.05 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £990 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,330
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.