Case 2400891/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Kelly v Urmston E Cigs Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400891/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Kelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Kelly's claim was heard remotely in Manchester on 20 May 2021 before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall sitting alone. The respondent, Urmston E-Cigs Limited (in voluntary liquidation), did not present a response and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract of employment and/or made unlawful deductions from his wages.
The tribunal identified two sums due to the claimant: £2,096.27 net in respect of holiday pay outstanding on termination of employment, and £1,123 net in respect of notice pay. Those sums were recorded as the tribunal's judgment in favour of the claimant. No separate award of interest or other remedy was quantified in the judgment itself; the total monetary award is £3,219.27 net.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay outstanding on termination of employment. The judgment records this as part of the respondent having breached the contract of employment and/or made unlawful deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,096 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay. The judgment records this as part of the respondent having breached the contract of employment and/or made unlawful deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,123 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,219
- 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.