Case 2302568/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Clarence Hills v Kavanagh Motor Group Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302568/2019
- Decision date
- 7 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Clarence Hills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Clarence Hills brought claims for unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract and unfair dismissal against Kavanagh Motor Group Limited. The respondent did not attend, but its ET3 admitted that £345.58 had been deducted from the claimant's wages. The tribunal found that £110 of that sum related to a parking fine and that the remainder was unpaid wages, so it entered judgment for £345.58 gross, subject to lawful deductions.
The tribunal rejected the breach of contract claim. It read the claimant's contract of employment and found that the respondent had contractual power to terminate on one week's notice or by payment in lieu of notice. The claimant accepted that he had received payment in lieu, so the tribunal held that there was no breach of contract; it added that, if it was wrong about that, the claimant had already received the measure of damages to which he would have been entitled.
The unfair dismissal complaint did not proceed to a substantive merits determination. The claimant accepted that he did not have sufficient qualifying service, withdrew the complaint, and the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The ET3 admitted that the claimant was owed £345.58 deducted from wages. The tribunal noted that £110 of this sum related to a parking fine and the balance to unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £346 |
| Breach of contract | The employment contract allowed termination on one week's notice or by payment in lieu of notice. The claimant accepted that he had received payment in lieu, so the tribunal found no breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted that he did not have sufficient qualifying service. He withdrew the unfair dismissal complaint, and the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £346
- 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.