Case 1800503/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Morgan v Mr Denis Wordsworth (trading as Hall Street Motors) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800503/2020
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Morgan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 in favour of Mr Z Morgan against Mr Denis Wordsworth, trading as Hall Street Motors. The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £533.82. The tribunal recorded that this sum comprised £33.15 in arrears of pay and £500.67 holiday pay.
The tribunal also found the claimant's complaint of breach of contract well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay damages of £393.90, identified in the judgment as two weeks' notice entitlement.
The hearing listed for 20 March 2020 was vacated. The judgment records no discrimination findings and no separate breakdown beyond the two sums awarded on the wage and contract claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £533.82, made up of £33.15 arrears of pay and £500.67 holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £534 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the breach of contract complaint well-founded and awarded £393.90 in damages, described as two weeks' notice entitlement. | Upheld | — | £394 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £928
- 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.