Case 2405978/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Boyle v R & M Consultancy Service Company 1 Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405978/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Boyle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Ficklin at Manchester by Cloud Video on 18 October 2022. The claimant, Mr R Boyle, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was conducted by CVP and that neither party objected to that format.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s breach of contract claim was well-founded and awarded £1,833.00 gross of tax and national insurance. It also held that the claimant’s claim for unpaid wages was well-founded and awarded £261.90 gross of tax and national insurance.
The tribunal therefore awarded a total of £2,094.90. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim well-founded and awarded £1,833.00 gross of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,833 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid wages. It was found well-founded and £261.90 gross of tax and national insurance was awarded. | Upheld | — | £262 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,095
- 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.