Case 2307196/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McMenamin v Vistry Homes Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307196/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McMenamin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant’s complaint under Regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded. It ordered Vistry Homes Limited to pay compensation of £232.27.
The claimant’s complaints relating to unpaid commission failed and were dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so no further written factual or legal reasoning appears in the decision itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The Tribunal held that the complaint under Regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded and awarded compensation of £232.27. | Upheld | — | £232 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record describes these as complaints relating to unpaid commission, and they were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £232
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.