Case 1804834/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Willers v Super Car Prestige Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804834/2020
- Decision date
- 12 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Willers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge D N Jones determined the case on the papers. The claimant, Mr C Willers, succeeded on all of the listed claims against Super Car Prestige Limited.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £3,065. It also found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded £2,569.48 in compensation, comprising a basic award of £2,069.48 and a compensatory award of £500, which the judgment says related solely to loss of statutory rights. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £403.85.
The hearing listed for 26 January 2021 was cancelled. The judgment was sent to the parties on 12 November 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £3,065 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £3,065 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded £2,569.48 for unfair dismissal, made up of a basic award of £2,069.48 and a compensatory award of £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £2,569 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £403.85. | Upheld | — | £404 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,038
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,069
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.