Case 1600057/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dobbs v Mr Robert Williams and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600057/2023
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore Representation
- Venue
- By video
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Dobbs
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Dobbs, was employed by the first respondent, Mr Robert Williams. The second respondent, Thermal Heating Ltd (In Creditor’s Voluntary Liquidation), was dismissed as a respondent to the proceedings. The hearing took place by video on 23 June 2023 before Employment Judge Moore, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondents not attending.
The tribunal upheld three claims against the first respondent. It found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £780.00. It also found that holiday pay had not been paid and ordered £117.00. In addition, the tribunal found a breach of the duty to give a written statement of initial employment particulars under s.1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded the claimant £780.00, described as two weeks' pay under s.38(3) Employment Act 2002.
The total payable by the first respondent was £1,677.00. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £780 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £117 |
| Other | The judgment records a failure to give a written statement of initial employment particulars under s.1(1) ERA 1996, with the award of two weeks' pay under s.38(3) Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £780 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,677
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
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.