Case 2303692/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Tickner v Mitchell Stevenson — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303692/2019
- Decision date
- 30 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Tickner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Tickner did not attend the hearing and did not object to the case proceeding in his absence. The respondent, Mitchell Stevenson, was represented by Mrs S. Johnston, the sales director, who gave evidence about the claimant's work as a merchandiser visiting high street retailers to take orders for greetings cards.
The tribunal found that the claimant was required to sign in at stores, take before-and-after photographs of the display fixtures, take orders as needed, and leave the fixtures fully stocked. It accepted the respondent's evidence that concerns arose in May and June 2019 because the claimant was failing to visit retailers and was instead sending duplicate photographs from earlier visits to show that he had attended subsequent occasions.
On that evidence, the tribunal held that the claimed unpaid wages related to visits the claimant had not made, so he had no entitlement to those sums. It also found that a £25 administration fee had been contractually deductible. The tribunal was satisfied that holiday pay had been paid in full and that there was no outstanding entitlement to expenses.
The judgment therefore dismissed the claims for unauthorised deduction of wages and breach of contract. It also recorded that the claimant had claimed £200 as compensation, but there was no basis for that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons referred to claims for unpaid wages, unpaid holiday pay, expenses said to be contractually due, and an additional £200 compensation claim. The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction claim, finding no entitlement to the wages claimed and noting a £25 administration fee was contractually deductible. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract claim. It found holiday pay had been paid in full, there was no entitlement to outstanding expenses, and the additional £200 compensation claim had no basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.