Case 2408462/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Preece v Woolston Commercials Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408462/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Claimant
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Preece
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ord heard the case in Liverpool on 26 November 2021, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not attending. The tribunal found that Woolston Commercials Ltd had made an unlawful deduction from Mr Preece's wages and ordered it to pay him the gross sum of £19,800.00 in respect of that deduction.
The tribunal also found that Mr Preece's claim for unpaid holiday pay was well-founded and ordered payment of £3,705.95 gross. In addition, it found that the respondent was in breach of contract because it had not reimbursed expenses for personal protective equipment, and ordered damages of £48.00 for that item.
The judgment therefore resolved all three claims in the claimant's favour, with a total monetary award of £23,553.95 gross. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £19,800 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,706 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £48 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,554
- 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.