Case 2405209/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Beard v CMH Innovation and Developments Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405209/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Beard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester by CVP on 16 December 2020, before Employment Judge Feeney, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of unlawful deduction of wages, in respect of arrears of pay and holiday pay, and breach of contract, in respect of notice pay, succeeded.
The award was expressed as net of tax and national insurance. Under unlawful deductions, the tribunal awarded £323 net for one week arrears of pay, based on a gross weekly rate of £375, and £646 net for holiday pay calculated as 10 days or 2 weeks at the same gross weekly rate. The breach of contract award was £323 net for one week's notice pay for the week 19 February to 26 February 2020 at £375 gross per week.
The total award was £1,292 net. The judgment also included a standard notice about interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, but the judgment itself did not record any separate interest sum awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claim so far as it covered one week arrears of pay at £323 net and holiday pay of £646 net, making £969 net in total under unlawful deductions. | Upheld | — | £969 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the claim for one week's notice pay for the week 19 February to 26 February 2020 at £323 net. | Upheld | — | £323 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,292
- 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.