Case 2305353/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Butler v Laserck Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305353/2019
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Butler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Andrews determined the case on the papers. The tribunal found that Laserck Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr S Butler’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £4,482.96.
The tribunal also found that Mr Butler was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent to pay damages of £463.13 for that notice period breach.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Butler’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £935.51. The judgment records no separate split between heads of loss beyond these individual sums, and the combined total of the awards is £5,881.60.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £4,482.96 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £4,483 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £463.13. | Upheld | — | £463 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £935.51. | Upheld | — | £936 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,882
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.