Case 2401218/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Reid v Home Heat Gas Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401218/2022
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Reid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester via CVP on 27 October 2022, Employment Judge Anderson, sitting alone, heard Mr M Reid's claims against Home Heat Gas Limited. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint of unfair dismissal and dismissed that claim. It also held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint of breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and dismissed that claim.
The tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully deducted £1,950 from the claimant's pay, and recorded that the sum was calculated on a gross basis. That was the only monetary award identified in the judgment.
The written record sent on 31 October 2022 also included the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating a relevant decision day of 31 October 2022, a calculation day of 1 November 2022, and a stipulated rate of 8% per annum. No separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint of unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint was pleaded as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal); the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully deducted £1,950 from the claimant's pay, calculated on a gross basis. | Upheld | — | £1,950 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,950
- 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.