Case 1806617/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Gladwin v Lucas Lee Ltd HELD in Sheffield by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806617/2021
- Decision date
- 21 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Gladwin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn case 1806617/2021, the tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages payable on 30 November 2021 and 31 December 2021. The tribunal then recorded that the respondent had made good those deductions and that the claimant had not suffered any loss, so no further relief was awarded on that claim.
In case 1800075/2022, the claimant was permitted to amend his complaint to include unpaid expenses incurred during the course of his employment, in particular puncture repair costs. The matter was resolved by consent, and the respondent was ordered to pay £57, made up of £20 for puncture repair expenses and £37 for mobile telephone costs, by 29 March 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages payable on 30 November 2021 and 31 December 2021. It recorded that the respondent had made good the deductions and that the claimant had not suffered any loss, so no further relief was ordered. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was given permission to amend his complaint to include unpaid expenses incurred during employment, including puncture repair costs. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £57 made up of £20 for puncture repair expenses and £37 for mobile telephone costs. | Settled | — | £57 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £57
- 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.