Case 1806297/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person (assisted by his mother) v Door Solutions Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806297/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person (assisted by his mother)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages. It accepted that the claimant had undertaken 132.5 hours of work at £6 per hour that remained unpaid, and awarded £795 on that basis. It also awarded £246 for holiday pay accrued due but untaken at the end of the employment.
The tribunal also held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. It found that he was summarily dismissed in circumstances where he was entitled to one month’s notice to bring the contract of employment to an end, and awarded damages of £891 for that breach of contract. The judgment text uses the phrase 'constructively wrongfully dismissed by the claimant', but the substance of the finding and the remedy are for wrongful dismissal based on a failure to give notice.
The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed. The judgment records a gross sum due to the claimant of £1,932, to be paid on or before 3 March 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprised £795 for 132.5 hours of unpaid work at £6 per hour and £246 for accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,041 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was summarily dismissed where he was entitled to one month's notice. The phrase 'constructively wrongfully dismissed by the claimant' appears in the text, but the reasoning and remedy are for wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £891 |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,932
- 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.