Case 1810644/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Matt Engineering Ltd (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1810644/2018
- Decision date
- 29 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Representation
- Venue
- Hull
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Hull on 16 January 2020, before Employment Judge Rogerson, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent, Matt Engineering Ltd (in administration), did not attend and had entered no response. The tribunal recorded that it was dealing with the claimant's final pay on the basis of the materials before it.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of wages from the claimant's final wages in the gross sum of £4,140.25. The deduction was said to comprise redundancy pay, notice pay and outstanding holiday pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to repay that sum to the claimant.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. It awarded a compensatory award of £1,475.20. The judgment does not set out any separate basic award or interest award, and no further reasoning is given in the short written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from final wages comprising redundancy pay, notice pay and outstanding holiday pay, and ordered repayment of that gross sum. | Upheld | — | £4,140 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award; no basic award was recorded in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,475 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,615
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,475
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.