Case 2407230/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B King v Auxilium Developments Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407230/2023
- Decision date
- 6 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,375. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with the respondent ordered to pay £675 as damages for one week’s statutory notice entitlement. The award was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as post-employment notice pay.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s accrued annual leave entitlement of 13 days. It ordered payment of £1,620 gross for that amount. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Dunlop on 3 October 2023 and sent to the parties on 6 October 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,375 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for one week’s statutory notice entitlement, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable on post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £675 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for 13 days of accrued annual leave entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,620 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,670
- 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.