Case 1600269/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Tinley v Art of Eco Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600269/2021
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Tinley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Cardiff on 24 February 2022 before Judge MM Thomas, upheld the Claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. It found that Art Of Eco Ltd failed to pay the Claimant the full amount of his wages due from 1 July 2020 until 24 February 2021, and ordered payment of £30,411, described as the total gross sum deducted.
The tribunal also upheld the Claimant's breach of contract claim. It found that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant without notice and ordered damages of £9,125, described as three months' wages in lieu of notice for that breach.
The judgment records no other claims or remedies. The total amount ordered by the tribunal was £39,536, made up of the two sums awarded on the wages and notice claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the Claimant the full amount of wages due from 1 July 2020 until 24 February 2021. | Upheld | — | £30,411 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the Claimant without notice and awarded damages representing three months' wages in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £9,125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,536
- 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.