Case 2401347/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Jesson v Hough Green Garage Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401347/2021
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Jesson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of £444.00 from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £444.00 plus £79.40 for consequential losses, making a total award of £523.40 on that issue.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s other money claims. It found that further deductions from wages were authorised, and it also found that there were no unauthorised deductions from holiday pay. Those claims therefore failed.
The unfair dismissal complaint failed because the claimant did not have the qualifying period of continuous employment and so had no statutory protection against unfair dismissal. The breach of contract claim also failed because the tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without giving notice.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction of £444.00 from wages and ordered payment of £444.00 plus £79.40 for consequential losses, totalling £523.40. | Upheld | — | £523 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant did not have the qualifying period of continuous employment, so the unfair dismissal complaint failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without giving notice, so the breach of contract claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found there were no unauthorised deductions from the claimant's holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £523
- 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.