Case 1805224/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Chinn v AC Precision Engineering Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805224/2021
- Decision date
- 2 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Chinn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Reading on 1 and 2 February 2023, Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone upheld the claimant's unlawful deductions from wages claim in respect of holiday pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £4,101, comprising £1,925 holiday pay and a further £2,176, described as four weeks' pay, under s38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had breached s1 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's other claims were dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the published decision does not set out separate findings on the dismissed claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £1,925 in holiday pay plus £2,176 (four weeks' pay) under s38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent was in breach of s1 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £4,101 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed in the final sentence of the written record; the published decision does not set out separate written reasons for the dismissed claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,101
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s38 Employment Act 2002
- s1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.