Case 1800727/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Musgrave v The Ultimate Battery Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800727/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Musgrave
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response in time. It determined the claim on the material available without the listed hearing proceeding.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £761.54 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,750.00 gross.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £63.46 gross. The judgment also recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance payable.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded the gross amount of £761.54. | Upheld | — | £762 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded the gross amount of £2,750.00. | Upheld | — | £2,750 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded the gross amount of £63.46. | Upheld | — | £63 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,575
- 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.