Case 2402825/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Gravestock, the claimant’s father For the v Mr Lomas - consultant — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402825/2021
- Decision date
- 8 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Gravestock, the claimant’s father For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Skehan, determined a single claim for unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the claim well-founded.
The judgment records that the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the agreed sum of £1,107.27 within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
The separate notice on interest states that, if the sum was not paid within 14 days after the written judgment was sent, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It records 8 July 2021 as the relevant decision day, 9 July 2021 as the calculation day, and an interest rate of 8%.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded and recorded that the respondent must pay the agreed sum of £1,107.27 within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £1,107 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,107
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.