Case 1801838/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Dean v Gillian Dawson — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801838/2022
- Decision date
- 19 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moxon Representation
- Venue
- Leeds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Dean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAll figures were treated as gross figures, and the tribunal recorded that the claimant’s net income was £303 per week. The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.
The tribunal held that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. It ordered payment of £160.77 gross for that deduction.
The tribunal also awarded £690 gross as additional compensation pursuant to section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. The total sum ordered was £850.77 gross, payable within 14 days of the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages because the respondent did not pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. | Upheld | — | £161 |
| Other | Additional compensation was awarded under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £690 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £851
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.