Case 2404600/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Madlin v MKDJLW1 Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404600/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Madlin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool on 14 February 2025, before Employment Judge Aspinall, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent made no appearance. The written record states that the claimant succeeded in his unauthorised deduction from wages claim and in his breach of contract claim, while his holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The award totalled £6,373. The tribunal awarded £3,832 for unauthorised deduction from wages, described as unpaid June and July salary. It also awarded £1,916 for one month of contractual notice pay and £625 for pension deductions made from pay but not paid to NEST.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No further findings or legal analysis are set out in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award was for unauthorised deduction from wages covering June and July salary. | Upheld | — | £3,832 |
| Breach of contract | The award covered one month contractual notice pay (£1,916) and unpaid pension deductions made from pay but not paid to NEST (£625). | Upheld | — | £2,541 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,373
- 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.