Case 1808779/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tattersdale v Brookes Mechanical Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808779/2023
- Decision date
- 20 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Tattersdale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge McAvoy Newns, sitting at Leeds via CVP on 10 May 2024, proceeded under Rule 47 in the absence of the Respondent. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the Respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, justifying a 15% uplift to the compensatory award.
The Claimant was awarded a basic award of £4,822.50 and a compensatory award of £19,780.43, the latter comprising immediate loss of earnings (£8,109.33), future loss of earnings (£7,114.64), loss of employer pension contributions (£1,526.40), loss of statutory rights (£450) and the 15% ACAS uplift (£2,580.06).
The Tribunal further found that the Claimant had suffered an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of holiday pay due on termination and ordered payment of £1,512 gross. The breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994/1623 succeeded in respect of notice pay and unpaid expenses, with £8,338.25 gross ordered. The Recoupment Provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £4,822.50 plus compensatory award £19,780.43 (which includes a 15% ACAS uplift of £2,580.06 for the Respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures). Respondent did not attend; hearing proceeded under Rule 47. | Upheld | — | £24,603 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to s.13 ERA 1996 in respect of holiday pay due on termination; gross sum of £1,512 ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,512 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay element was adjudicated as part of the unlawful deduction from wages claim under s.13 ERA 1996 (see £1,512 award); not separately quantified. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim pursuant to the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994/1623 succeeded in respect of notice pay and unpaid expenses; gross sum £8,338.25 ordered. | Upheld | — | £8,338 |
| Working time regulations | Listed on gov.uk under Working Time Regulations but the judgment text does not separately adjudicate a Working Time Regulations claim distinct from the holiday pay / unlawful deduction claim. Confidence reduced accordingly. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,453
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,823
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £19,780
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 of The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994/1623
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.