Case 2404601/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S P Salusbury v R M Plumbing and Gas Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404601/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S P Salusbury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester by CVP on 29 July 2024 before Employment Judge Ross. The claimant, Mr S P Salusbury, was represented by Ms V Jones and the respondent, R M Plumbing and Gas Limited, was represented by Mr R Mottram. The written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and sets out only the formal outcome.
The claimant brought three money claims. The first was a claim for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The second was a claim for accrued but untaken holiday on termination under regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The third was a claim for wrongful dismissal, expressed as notice pay.
The tribunal held that each of the three claims was not well founded and failed. No part of the judgment indicates that any of the claims succeeded, and no monetary award was made. The written record does not set out separate factual findings or any divided remedy calculation beyond the dismissal of each claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 found not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination under regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998 found not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay/wrongful dismissal found not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.