Case 2407087/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Long v Scratch Repair Company Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407087/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Long
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phil Allen issued the judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal found that Scratch Repair Company Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr L Long's wages and ordered payment of £2,538.99 gross. It also found that he had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,500 gross, calculated at £500 per week for three weeks' notice entitlement.
The tribunal further found that Mr Long was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,500, calculated as one week's pay for each full year worked over three years. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £800 gross for eight days. The total gross sum awarded was £6,338.99. The judgment noted that Mr Long would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising if the gross figure is paid without tax being deducted at source.
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 and ordered repayment of the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £2,539 |
| Breach of contract | Award for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice, calculated at £500 per week for 3 weeks' notice entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment calculated by reference to 3 full years' service. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Holiday pay | Award for unpaid holiday entitlement, calculated as 8 days. | Upheld | — | £800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,339
- 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.