Case 2410437/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Wilkinson v MWB Transport Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410437/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the tribunal entered judgment on the papers. It found that MWB Transport Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr C Wilkinson’s wages and ordered payment of £800.00 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £800.00, recording that this was a net sum but was based on the claimant’s gross pay because it was likely to be subject to tax as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £810.40 gross. The judgment does not set out extended reasons beyond those findings and awards, and it cancelled the hearing listed for 2 January 2020. The total of the awards recorded in the judgment is £2,410.40.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £800.00. | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £800.00, described as a net sum based on the claimant’s gross pay because it was likely to be treated as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £810.40 gross. | Upheld | — | £810 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,410
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.