Case 2406034/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mullin (known as :daniel-thomas:) v Derek Williams and 5 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406034/2019
- Decision date
- 15 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms J Whistler, Mr I Frame
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr D Mullin (known as :daniel-thomas:)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Manchester on 7 to 11 September 2020 before Employment Judge Dunlop, with Ms J Whistler and Mr I Frame as lay members. It dismissed the claimant's claim of unlawful victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
On the wages issue, the tribunal found that the sixth respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £60.00 gross. The separate interest notice states that any unpaid tribunal sum would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the stipulated rate recorded as 8% and the calculation day as 16 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The judgment records this as a claim of unlawful victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The sixth respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the claimant £60.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £60 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £60
- 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.