Case 1809183/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Williams v Art of Smart Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1809183/2023
- Decision date
- 8 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge T Knowles, sitting alone at Leeds by video on 8 April 2024, substituted Art of Smart Group Limited as the correctly named respondent under Rule 34 and proceeded in the respondent's absence.
The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. It awarded a basic award of £2,192.32 and a compensatory award of £8,550.95, giving a total monetary award for unfair dismissal of £10,743.27, to which the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply because the claimant had received jobseekers allowance during the period covered (6 December 2023 to 8 April 2024). The Tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,800.47 gross.
The Tribunal further found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures and ordered a 25% uplift on the above awards amounting to £3,135.93. The element of the unlawful deductions claim relating to pension contributions not paid into the relevant pension fund was held to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and was referred to the Pensions Regulator.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £2,192.32 plus compensatory award £8,550.95. Recoupment of Benefits Regulations 1996 apply; prescribed element £8,550.95 covering 6 December 2023 to 8 April 2024. | Upheld | — | £10,743 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum ordered for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,800 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Part of the wages claim relating to unpaid pension contributions was held to be outside the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction and should be referred to the Pensions Regulator. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract was listed in the gov.uk categories but the written judgment does not separately adjudicate a breach of contract claim; outcome unclear from the available text. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Working Time Regulations claim was listed in the gov.uk categories but is not addressed in the written judgment text; outcome unclear. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,680
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,192
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,551
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures
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.