Case 2403956/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Jackman v Craven Inns Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403956/2022
- Decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Jackman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester hearing on 6 February 2023, before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall, the tribunal found that Mr J Jackman had been unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed, and subjected to unlawful deductions from wages by Craven Inns Limited. The unlawful deduction finding was recorded as being in respect of holiday pay.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,632.12 and a compensatory award of £500, and it recorded that the recoupment provisions do not apply. For wrongful dismissal, it ordered payment of £3,105 net. For unlawful deductions from wages, it ordered payment of £2,076.71 gross, subject to deductions.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay the claimant's costs in the sum of £1,500. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,632.12 and a compensatory award of £500. The written record states that the recoupment provisions do not apply. | Upheld | — | £4,132 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal ordered payment of £3,105 net. | Upheld | — | £3,105 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deductions were said to relate to holiday pay. The sum was awarded gross, so subject to deductions. | Upheld | — | £2,077 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,814
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,632
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.