Case 1805390/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sinclair v Mr A Padgett — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805390/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sinclair
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting under Rule 21, found the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. It ordered the respondent, Mr A Padgett, to pay £1,318.50, described in the judgment as 146.5 hours worked in the weeks of 19 and 26 August 2019 at £9.00 per hour.
The tribunal also found the claimant's complaint of breach of contract in respect of entitlement to notice of termination of employment well-founded. It ordered damages of £1,440.00, described as four weeks' notice entitlement. The judgment records that the hearing listed for 11 December 2019 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £1,318.50, described as 146.5 hours worked in the weeks of 19 and 26 August 2019 at £9.00 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,319 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in respect of entitlement to notice of termination well-founded and ordered damages of £1,440.00, described as four weeks' notice entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,440 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,759
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.