Case 1601674/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Bradfield-Humphreys v Macob Scaffolding Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601674/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Bradfield-Humphreys
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a liability judgment under Rule 21 in which Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan found for Mr. M. Bradfield-Humphreys on all pleaded issues. The tribunal held that Macob Scaffolding Ltd made unauthorised deductions from wages, failed to pay holiday pay due, and breached the claimant's contract in relation to notice of termination.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. No quantum was determined in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that the sum to be awarded would be assessed on written evidence from the claimant and that a further remedy judgment would follow, with a hearing only if required.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 liability judgment; the amount payable was to be assessed later on written evidence. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 liability judgment; the amount payable was to be assessed later on written evidence. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach found was the respondent's failure to give notice of termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | — |
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.