Case 2400958/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gill v Funky Owl (DAK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400958/2020
- Decision date
- 3 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £711.53 net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £376.29 net. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £159.37 net, calculated as 23.3 hours at £6.84 net.
The notice following the judgment recorded that interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sums were not paid within 14 days, with the relevant decision day as 3 July 2020, the calculation day as 4 July 2020, and the stipulated rate as 8%.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment ordered payment of the net sum for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £712 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages for unlawful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £376 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment ordered payment for holiday entitlement, calculated as 23.3 hours at £6.84 net. | Upheld | — | £159 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,247
- 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.