Case 1807282/2022 · Employment Tribunal
1. Richard Cook 2. Jason Lodge 3. Paul Dawson 4. Billy Dobson 5. Michael Hancock 6. David Maunder v Food Service Logistics Limited Heard by CVP Remote Video Link — 2023
- Case reference
- 1807282/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Richard Cook 2. Jason Lodge 3. Paul Dawson 4. Billy Dobson 5. Michael Hancock 6. David Maunder
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge D N Jones on 26 May 2023 by CVP remote video link. The claimants were Richard Cook, Jason Lodge, Paul Dawson, Billy Dobson, Michael Hancock and David Maunder, and the respondent was Food Service Logistics Limited.
The judgment records a dismissal of the claims for compensation for holiday leaves and/or unauthorised deductions from wages. No separate reasons, factual findings, or monetary award are set out in the extracted text provided.
On the material available, the only recorded outcome is that the holiday pay and wage deduction claims were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment says the claims for compensation for holiday leaves and/or unauthorised deductions from wages were dismissed; it does not separate the holiday pay head from the wage deduction head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the claims for compensation for holiday leaves and/or unauthorised deductions from wages were dismissed; it does not separate the holiday pay head from the wage deduction head. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.