Case 2302865/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Blitz (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2302865/2017
- Decision date
- 18 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Bryant QC
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Blitz (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's response to the claimant's claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and notice pay was struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's response to the unfair dismissal claim was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders.
Judgment was given in the claimant's favour on those claims. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,000 gross for the unauthorised deduction from wages claim, with remedy for the notice pay and unfair dismissal claims to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and awards £2,000 gross for that claim. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a claim for notice pay. Remedy for this claim was reserved to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's response to the unfair dismissal claim was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders, and judgment was given in the claimant's favour. Remedy was reserved to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- 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.