Case 2408589/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Simpson v Aaron Rail Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408589/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Simpson did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The respondent, Aaron Rail Limited, was represented by its director, Mr Lees. The tribunal decided that the respondent had not breached the contract in relation to notice, so the breach of contract claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also decided that the respondent had not made unauthorised deductions from wages, so that claim was dismissed as well. In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings, at least since the hearing on 13 April 2023.
As a result of that conduct finding, the tribunal made a preparation time order in respect of 7.5 hours of the respondent director's preparatory work after the 13 April 2023 hearing and before the final hearing, at £43 per hour. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent £322.50.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent did not breach the contract with regard to notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent did not make unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £323
- 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.