Case 1810576/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Goodman v Repair Lab Leeds Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1810576/2018
- Decision date
- 26 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Goodman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Repair Lab Leeds Limited. It then found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J Goodman’s wages and ordered payment of £1,083. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £96.
The claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment were dismissed. The tribunal recorded that Mr Goodman did not have the necessary two years’ service to qualify to bring those claims. The judgment does not record any separate injury to feelings, interest, or other remedy beyond the two monetary awards identified above.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,083 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £96 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have the necessary two years' service to qualify to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have the necessary two years' service to qualify to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,179
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.