Case 2410469/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Bentley v Skyline Property Solutions Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410469/2019
- Decision date
- 10 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Bentley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 5 August 2020 before Employment Judge Leach, the claimant succeeded in his claim for unlawful deductions of pay under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded two unpaid items: holiday pay of £123.09 gross and statutory sick pay of £37.70 gross.
The claimant also succeeded in a breach of contract claim. The judgment records a failure to provide one week’s notice of dismissal, valued at £384.60 gross, and reimbursement of expenses incurred, valued at £215.76.
The operative order required the respondent to pay £545.39 gross, less deductions under PAYE, and a further £215.76 without deduction. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded for non-payment of holiday pay (£123.09 gross) and statutory sick pay (£37.70 gross). The operative order groups this head with the notice-pay breach-of-contract sum in the payment figure of £545.39 gross less PAYE deductions. | Upheld | — | £161 |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded for failure to provide one week's notice of dismissal (£384.60 gross) and reimbursement of expenses incurred (£215.76). The operative order records £215.76 payable without deduction and the notice-pay sum as part of the £545.39 gross payment figure. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £761
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.