Case 2406956/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hempsall v Scratch Repair Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406956/2023
- Decision date
- 3 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hempsall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester Employment Tribunal on 30 October 2023, Employment Judge Cookson heard the case by CVP. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal amended the respondent name to Scratch Repair Company Limited and found the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded because, in April 2023, the respondent failed to pay wages including overtime and travelling time, and also failed to pay outstanding expenses.
The tribunal awarded £2,645.27 for unpaid wages and £144 for unpaid expenses. It also upheld the breach of contract claim for notice pay and awarded £2,788.45 in damages, calculated on a gross basis to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as post-employment notice pay.
The holiday pay complaint was also well-founded, with the tribunal finding that holiday accrued but not taken at the end of employment had not been paid and awarding £1,338.46. Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant was found entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,346.14, bringing the total awards to £10,262.32. The written record also included the tribunal's interest notice, stating the relevant decision day was 3 November 2023 and the stipulated rate was 8% per annum, but no separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in April 2023 because the respondent failed to pay wages including overtime and travelling time, plus outstanding expenses. The award comprised £2,645.27 for unpaid wages and £144 for expenses. | Upheld | — | £2,789 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was found well-founded. Damages were calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,788 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday accrued but untaken on the date employment ended, amounting to an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,338 |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant was determined to be entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,346 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,262
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.