Case 2302523/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Albiston v Interclad Facades Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302523/2019
- Decision date
- 17 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Albiston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment given by Employment Judge Wright on 17 September 2020. The tribunal found that Interclad Facades Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr M Albiston's wages and ordered the respondent to pay him the net sum of £6,066.06.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's pension contributions and ordered payment of £492.06. The judgment further states that the claimant is to account to HMRC. The extracted text does not set out any additional reasoning beyond these orders.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £6,066.06. | Upheld | — | £6,066 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's pension contributions and ordered payment of £492.06. The extracted text does not state an express legal label for this claim. | Upheld | — | £492 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,558
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.