Case 1600843/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hill v Modfix Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600843/2019
- Decision date
- 24 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ward Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr C Hill against Modfix Limited. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £234.00, and that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £1,360.64.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was therefore entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,620.00. It further found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered £237.60 in respect of that sum. The hearing listed for 14 October 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross/net sum of £234.00 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £234 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,360.64. | Upheld | — | £1,361 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,620.00. | Upheld | — | £1,620 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £237.60. | Upheld | — | £238 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,452
- 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.