Case 1600861/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Goddard v MB Evans Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600861/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grubb
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Goddard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Grubb, sitting alone at Cardiff Employment Tribunal, recorded that the claimant's claim for a protective payment under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was dismissed following withdrawal. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of holiday pay, finding that he had not been subjected to unlawful deductions contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. A further complaint that the claimant had not been provided with true written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 of the 1996 Act was also found not well-founded.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim, finding that MB Evans Limited dismissed him without notice. It ordered the respondent to pay £5,136 notice pay, calculated as 12 weeks at the claimant's net weekly pay of £428. The judgment states that this sum was net of tax and national insurance.
The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent had unfairly dismissed the claimant contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded a basic award of £16,800, calculated as 30 qualifying weeks at a gross weekly pay of £560. The claimant's date of birth was recorded as 31 July 1960, his employment start date as 1997, his effective date of termination as 25 March 2022, and his continuous service as 25 years.
The tribunal reduced the period of loss for any compensatory award by 100% under the principles of Polkey v A E Dayton Services. As a result, no compensatory award was payable. The recoupment section recorded a prescribed period from 25 March 2022 to 31 January 2023, a total award of £21,936, a prescribed element of £0, and a balance of £21,936.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective payment under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages complaint related to holiday pay and was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the claimant was not provided with true written reasons for dismissal contrary to s.92 ERA 1996 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and awarded 12 weeks' net notice pay. | Upheld | — | £5,136 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but the period of loss for any compensatory award was reduced by 100% under Polkey, so only the basic award was ordered. | Upheld | — | £16,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,936
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £16,800
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Services
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.