Case 2404487/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Nessling v Cuckoo Brow Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404487/2023
- Decision date
- 8 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Nessling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Manchester by CVP before Employment Judge Johnson on 3 January 2024, found that both of the claimant's monetary complaints were well founded. The first was a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996, which succeeded and attracted an award of £3,372.40.
The second successful complaint was for holiday pay remaining untaken and unpaid on termination of employment, brought under regulations 13 and 13A Working Time Regulations 1998. That complaint succeeded and the tribunal awarded £1,446.40.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £4,818.80 in full and final settlement of the two successful complaints. The written record does not set out further reasons beyond recording the oral judgment delivered at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and awarded £3,372.40 in settlement of that complaint. | Upheld | — | £3,372 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the complaint for holiday pay remaining untaken and unpaid on termination, under regulations 13 and 13A Working Time Regulations 1998, was well founded and awarded £1,446.40 in settlement of that complaint. | Upheld | — | £1,446 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,819
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulations 13 and 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
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.