Case 1806789/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Clegg v PDB Controls, Network Centre — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806789/2021
- Decision date
- 4 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moxon Representation
- Venue
- Leeds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Clegg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds via CVP on 4 May 2022, Employment Judge Moxon dismissed Mr J Clegg's claim for notice pay and his claim for the cost of returning property to the respondent. The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered it to pay £487.38, being the total gross sum deducted, by 19 May 2022.
The tribunal granted the claimant's application for an extension of time to respond to the respondent's counterclaim, and then dismissed that counterclaim. The written judgment is a short record of decision and does not set out detailed reasons beyond the orders made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay was dismissed. The written record gives no further reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for the cost of returning property to the respondent was dismissed. The written record gives no further reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £487.38, described as the total gross sum deducted, by 19 May 2022. | Upheld | — | £487 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed. The written record does not set out the basis of the counterclaim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £487
- 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.