Case 2400511/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gray v Pure Optimisation Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400511/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Gray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr M Gray's claims for unpaid wages, redundancy pay, and accrued holiday pay succeeded. It ordered Pure Optimisation Limited to pay a total of £4,264.27, made up of £1,216.07 for unpaid wages, £1,050.00 for redundancy pay, and £1,998.20 for holiday pay.
The judgment cited Part II and Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 as the bases for the claims. It also included the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that unpaid sums would carry interest if not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, which was 11 March 2020, with interest calculated from 12 March 2020 at 8%.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as unpaid wages and stated it succeeded under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,216 |
| Redundancy | The judgment stated that the claimant's redundancy payment claim succeeded under Part XI Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment stated that the claim for accrued holiday pay succeeded under Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,998 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,264
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part XI Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.