Case 2406240/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wilson v The Oakley Technology Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2406240/2019
- Decision date
- 4 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 5 September 2019, Employment Judge Robinson, sitting alone, upheld the claimant Mr J Wilson's claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages against The Oakley Technology Group Limited. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant forthwith £4,246.80.
The schedule to the judgment set out the components of that total as £150.00 for April wages, £1,863.00 for May wages, £1,015.00 for June wages, £351.00 for mileage expenses, £552.00 for holiday pay, £101.80 for Nat West bank fees, £54.00 for fees to a laptop provider, £30.00 for an insurance-company fee relating to charges, and £130.00 for a parking ticket. The judgment also recorded the standard tribunal interest notice, stating that interest would apply if the sum remained unpaid more than 14 days after the written judgment was sent, with the stipulated rate shown as 8%.
No further order or direction was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Successful together with the unlawful deduction of wages claim. The tribunal did not allocate the total award separately between the two claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Successful together with the breach of contract claim. The tribunal did not allocate the total award separately between the two claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,247
- 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.