Case 1805044/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I McBride v Davymarkham Limited (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805044/2018
- Decision date
- 8 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I McBride
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment without a hearing under rule 60. The tribunal upheld Mr I McBride's claim for unlawful deduction from wages and ordered Davymarkham Limited (in Administration) to pay £3,053.47, described as the gross amount of the unlawful deduction.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract claim, finding that the respondent had failed to pay £251.28 in expenses that were contractually due. The judgment directed that the sums at paragraphs 1 and 2 were to be paid within 14 days.
The claimant's claim for a protective award was dismissed because he had no standing to pursue that claim in these proceedings. The judgment expressly recorded, for the avoidance of doubt, that he was entitled to benefit from a separate protective award dated 19 June 2019 in Unite the Union v Davymarkham Limited (in administration), case number 1805671/2018.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross amount deducted. | Upheld | — | £3,053 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract for failure to pay expenses contractually due. | Upheld | — | £251 |
| Other | The claimant's claim for a protective award was dismissed because he had no standing to pursue it. The judgment noted that he was entitled to benefit from a separate protective award made on 19 June 2019 in Unite the Union v Davymarkham Limited (in administration), case no. 1805671/2018. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,305
- 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.