Case 2405500/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Midgley v Classic Joinery Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405500/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Midgley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Allen entered judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal recorded that Classic Joinery Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,332.52. It also recorded that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,856.00.
The judgment then made two separate awards for failure to pay holiday entitlement, in the sums of £3,060.00 and £2,290.00. It did not give further reasons or differentiate the basis of the two holiday awards. The sums due were ordered to be paid by 05 February 2021.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,333 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,856 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records two separate awards for failure to pay holiday entitlement and does not explain the distinction between them. | Upheld | — | £3,060 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a second separate award for failure to pay holiday entitlement, using the same wording as the previous holiday item and without further breakdown. | Upheld | — | £2,290 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,539
- 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.