Case 1600322/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Nichols v Emag Solutions Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600322/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Nichols
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment determined by Employment Judge R Brace. The tribunal found that Emag Solutions Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr G Nichols's wages, had dismissed him in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay his holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,132.20 gross for the wages claim, £1,148.88 net as damages for notice pay, and £324.84 gross for holiday pay. The extracted judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any other remedy component.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,132.20. | Upheld | — | £1,132 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages in the net sum of £1,148.88. | Upheld | — | £1,149 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £324.84. | Upheld | — | £325 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,606
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.