Case 2410685/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lyons v Mathew Dunne T/a UK Life Protect Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410685/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter Appearances
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Lyons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Lyons appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it.
The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant one month’s unpaid contractual notice pay of £1,171 net.
The tribunal also found the claim for unpaid accrued holiday well-founded. It ordered payment of £409.85 net, described as 7 days at £58.55 net per day. No separate interest figure was set out in the judgment itself, although the attached notice explained that interest may accrue if sums remain unpaid after 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found the claim well-founded and ordered payment of one month's unpaid contractual notice pay in the sum of £1,171 net. | Upheld | — | £1,171 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the claim for unpaid accrued holiday to be well founded and ordered payment of £409.85 net, calculated as 7 days at £58.55 net per day. | Upheld | — | £410 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,581
- 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.