Case 1601045/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Arthur v Fabcraft Engineering Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1601045/2018
- Decision date
- 6 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Arthur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat alone and proceeded in the absence of an ET3 response, deciding the case on the material before it. It found that Fabcraft Engineering Limited had unlawfully deducted wages from Mr Mark Arthur and awarded him £1,473.50 for unpaid wages relating to the weeks ending 13th, 20th and 27th April 2018.
It also upheld Mr Arthur’s breach of contract claim in respect of unpaid expenses and awarded £216.58 for expenses incurred in the course of his employment. The tribunal noted that Mr Arthur had raised a written grievance and found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice.
Because of that failure, the tribunal increased the award by 25%, resulting in a total sum due of £2,112.60. It also recorded that Mr Arthur is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the wages element, and noted that if the respondent has ceased trading and recovery is difficult, he may be able to seek part of the debt from the National Insurance Fund under section 166(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. Interest was stated to accrue at 8% per annum on any part of the award unpaid 14 days after the date of judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for unpaid wages for the weeks ending 13th, 20th and 27th April 2018. The tribunal later applied a 25% ACAS uplift to the combined award, so this figure is part of the overall total rather than a standalone final sum. | Upheld | — | £1,474 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded for unpaid expenses incurred in the course of employment. The tribunal later applied a 25% ACAS uplift to the combined award, so this figure is part of the overall total rather than a standalone final sum. | Upheld | — | £217 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,113
- 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.