Case 2400097/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Parkinson v The Blindz Store Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400097/2023
- Decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Parkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Liverpool, sitting by video on 14 March 2024 before Employment Judge Benson, amended the respondent's name to The Blindz Store Limited by consent. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages between August 2022 and October 2022. The deductions were itemised as £766.30 week in hand, £240 contract payment, and £1,103.83 arrears of pay for October, with £50 treated as a lawful deduction for non-return of the claimant's uniform.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for the period August 2022 to October 2022. The award of £2,110.13 was said to comprise £766.30 week in hand, £240 contract payment, and £1,103.83 arrears of pay for October, less £50 lawfully deducted for non-return of the claimant's uniform. | Upheld | — | £2,110 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract in relation to notice pay. Damages were assessed at £384.61 and calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that this breach of contract claim was not well founded and dismissed. The wording in the extracted text refers to the 'respondent's complaint of breach of contract', which appears to be a drafting error, but no further particulars are given. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,495
- 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.