Case 2405815/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Norwood Mr D Cox v Trigger Happy UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405815/2019
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Norwood Mr D Cox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Manchester on 23 August 2019, Employment Judge Sherratt found that Trigger Happy UK Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Ms E Norwood's wages and ordered it to pay £17 gross. The tribunal also found that Ms Norwood had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £294 gross, and that her holiday entitlement had not been paid, with £155 gross awarded.
The tribunal made the same type of findings for Mr D Cox: his dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice, with £320.88 gross awarded, and his unpaid holiday entitlement was assessed at £157.25 gross. All other claims brought by both claimants were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant. | Upheld | — | £17 |
| Wrongful dismissal | First claimant; dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £294 |
| Holiday pay | First claimant. | Upheld | — | £155 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Second claimant; dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £321 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant. | Upheld | — | £157 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £944
- 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.