Case 2408869/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Burns v Monitor Systems (Electrical Engineers) Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408869/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Burns
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant’s complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded. It awarded Mr A Burns £6,930.00 as damages. The judgment records that the figure was calculated using gross pay because of the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal also recorded that the claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages were not pursued and were dismissed. The respondent, Monitor Systems (Electrical Engineers) Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation), did not attend the hearing. No separate award was made under the unfair dismissal or unlawful deduction claims, and the judgment does not record any award of interest at the time of judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim was found well-founded; the tribunal awarded £6,930.00 as damages and said the figure was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £6,930 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that this claim was not pursued and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that this claim was not pursued and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,930
- 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.