Case 2403270/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hollis v Stone Brook Builders Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2403270/2018
- Decision date
- 28 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hollis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Morris, sitting alone, found that Mr M Hollis was an employee of Stone Brook Builders Limited within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal then found that the respondent had agreed to pay him £120 for each day worked, but had paid him nothing for the nine days' work he carried out between Tuesday 5 September and Friday 15 September 2017, excluding the weekend of 9 and 10 September.
On that basis, the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,080, being the amount of the deduction found to have been made. The tribunal recorded that the sum was calculated by reference to gross pay, with any income tax and employee national insurance liability falling to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent did not pay the claimant at all for nine days' work between Tuesday 5 September and Friday 15 September 2017 inclusive, excluding the weekend of 9 and 10 September, when the agreed rate was £120 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,080 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,080
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.