Case 2401135/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Benton v Tyrecraft Liverpool Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401135/2024
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Benton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded the correct name of the respondent as Tyrecraft Liverpool Limited. The respondent was not in attendance and no response had been received.
The Tribunal found that the claim of unauthorised deduction from wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was presented in time and was successful. It found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction by failing to pay the claimant his full entitlement to a payment in lieu of notice, and ordered payment of wages of £7,042.00 gross. The breach of contract claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as an unauthorised deduction from wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant his full entitlement to a payment in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £7,042 |
| Breach of contract | The written judgment states that the breach of contract claim is dismissed but does not give written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,042
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.