Case 2302317/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Harry Mellor v NP3 Projects Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302317/2021
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Byrne Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Harry Mellor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 14 February 2023, Employment Judge M Byrne heard the case at London South Hearing Centre by CVP. The respondent did not attend or be represented, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The tribunal recorded that the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded, the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages, the holiday pay claim succeeded, and the claim for unpaid expenses succeeded.
The tribunal awarded £2,615.09 for wrongful dismissal, described as one month’s pay. It awarded £7,381.08 for unauthorised deductions from wages, calculated as a £615.09 monthly shortfall over 12 months. It also awarded £523.00 for holiday pay, being 4 days at £130.75, and £169.68 for unpaid expenses. The grand total payable forthwith was £10,688.85.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,615 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £7,381 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £523 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment describes this only as 'unpaid expenses'; mapped to breach_of_contract because no more specific claim type is available. | Upheld | — | £170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,689
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.