Case 2410005/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Rowley v 2029 Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410005/2019
- Decision date
- 24 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Rowley
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Liverpool on 15 January 2020, with the claimant appearing in person and no attendance for either respondent, Employment Judge Benson held that, by reason of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, Fleet Commercials Limited was the correct respondent. The claims against 2029 Limited were dismissed.
The tribunal found that Fleet Commercials Limited had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered it to pay the gross sum of £2,196.00. That sum was made up of £299.00 for accrued but untaken holiday pay, £857.00 for unpaid wages for March and April 2019, and £1,040.00 for additional losses suffered by the claimant. The written notice also stated that, if the amount was not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate of 8%.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By reason of TUPE 2006, Fleet Commercials Limited was held to be the correct respondent. The claims against 2029 Limited were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £2,196 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,196
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.