Case 2302195/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Murray Turner v NP3 Construction Ltd By CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302195/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Murray Turner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 18 August 2022, Employment Judge Martin heard the matter when the respondent did not attend and, after reading the claim form, response and documents, entered judgment for Mr Murray Turner. The tribunal found that NP3 Construction Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,479.30, described as 10 days' pay and including repayment of a tax rebate due to the claimant and received by the respondent.
The tribunal also found that Mr Turner was entitled to 0.8 days of accrued unpaid holiday and awarded £169.22. It further ordered the respondent to pay £39.10 for expenses incurred by the claimant in the performance of his duties. The judgment is brief and does not set out any separate legal test or additional reasoning beyond those awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award described as 10 days' pay and included repayment of a tax rebate due to the claimant and received by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £4,479 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued unpaid holiday of 0.8 days. | Upheld | — | £169 |
| Breach of contract | Expenses incurred by the claimant in the performance of his duties. | Upheld | — | £39 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,688
- 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.