Case 1600736/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jack Williams v Fabcraft Engineering Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1600736/2018
- Decision date
- 6 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jack Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the absence of an ET3 response, and on the material before the tribunal, Employment Judge Howden-Evans sitting alone found that Fabcraft Engineering Limited had unlawfully deducted wages from Mr Jack Williams. The award was for £891, made up of three weeks' unpaid wages at £297 net per week.
The judgment records that the respondent had reportedly ceased trading, so Mr Williams was likely to face difficulty recovering the debt from the respondent. The tribunal referred him to section 166(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, which explains the right to claim payment from the National Insurance Fund if the debt cannot be recovered from the employer.
The tribunal also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance & Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply to the award. Interest was noted as accruing at 8% per annum on any unpaid amount 14 days after the date of judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that Mr Williams had been unlawfully deducted wages and awarded £891, described as three weeks' wages at £297 net per week. | Upheld | — | £891 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £891
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 166(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 3(1)
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.