Case 1803031/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Almond v Wekanhire Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803031/2019
- Decision date
- 17 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Almond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr D Almond, succeeded on all claims before it. The tribunal found that Wekanhire Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from wages, had breached contract in relation to notice, had unfairly dismissed the claimant, and had failed to pay holiday entitlement.
The tribunal also recorded that the disability discrimination claim succeeded. The judgment does not set out the factual reasoning for each finding in the extracted text, but it states the outcomes plainly and records that remedy was not decided at this stage.
The judgment says that the claimant's entitlement to remedy would be determined at a remedy hearing on 2 August 2019. No monetary award is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment records that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim succeeded in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Judgment records that the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination claim succeeded; remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.