Case 1602158/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Liam Tantrum v Stone Supplies (Wales) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602158/2020
- Decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RL Brace
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Liam Tantrum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningLiam Tantrum was employed as an HGV driver by Stone Supplies (Wales) Limited from 4 March 2019 to 10 September 2020 under a written contract signed on 17 May 2019. The tribunal heard the case by CVP on 8 July 2021 in the respondent's absence after being satisfied that notice had been sent and that further attempts had been made to contact the respondent. The claimant accepted that the respondent was Stone Supplies (Wales) Limited and that he did not have two years' service, so the unfair dismissal complaint could not be entertained.
The tribunal found no evidence to support the respondent's allegation that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct involving damage to the vehicle, and it also rejected the respondent's counterclaim for £8,753.67. The counterclaim was treated as a breach of contract counterclaim and was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was summarily terminated on 10 September 2020 without notice, found that he was entitled to one week's notice under the contract, and awarded wrongful dismissal/notice pay, but limited the award to two days' pay because he had asked for his employment to end on 15 September 2020.
On wages, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and clocking cards that his working time began at 6:15am and found that he had not been paid for 15 minutes per day. It awarded £940.13 for 327 days at £11.50 per hour, and it also upheld an unlawful deduction of £850 from the final week's pay on 14 September 2020 because there was no evidential basis for that deduction. The holiday pay deduction claim failed because, although the tribunal accepted that the claimant often worked more than 40 hours, he did not prove the hours actually worked over the relevant 52-week period needed to recalculate holiday pay. The total gross award was £1,974.13.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had less than two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Employer terminated summarily on 10 September 2020 without notice; award limited to two days' pay to 15 September 2020. | Upheld | — | £184 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deduction taken from final pay on 14 September 2020; tribunal found no evidential basis for it. | Upheld | — | £850 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid 15 minutes per day from 4 March 2019 to 10 September 2020, calculated over 327 days at £11.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £940 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim in respect of holiday pay undercalculation failed because the claimant did not prove the actual hours worked over the relevant 52-week period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Employer's counterclaim for £8,753.67 was dismissed; no evidence supported the alleged repairs or over-claimed hours. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,974
- 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.