Case 1405300/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Meredith v 4D Lighting Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405300/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Meredith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment of Employment Judge Cadney Date, sent to the parties on 15 February 2021. The judgment records that the claimant's complaint of detriment as a result of making public interest disclosures was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment then upheld the claimant's claims for unlawful deduction from wages, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars of employment.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £3,286.27 for unlawful deduction from wages, £1,793.08 for unpaid holiday pay, and £2,152.00 for failure to provide written particulars of employment, the last sum being calculated as £538 multiplied by 4. The total award was £7,231.35.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claim that the claimant suffered detriment as a result of making public interest disclosures was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded £3,286.27, expressed in the judgment as £4,324.27 + £1,035.00 - £2,073.00. | Upheld | — | £3,286 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay awarded in the sum stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,793 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment; award of £2,152.00 calculated as £538 x 4. | Upheld | — | £2,152 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,231
- 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.