Case 2411074/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Maddox v Plastic Omnium Auto Exteriors — 2023
- Case reference
- 2411074/2021
- Decision date
- 21 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Maddox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr Maddox's complaint of unfair dismissal failed. No written reasons are set out in the extracted record beyond that outcome. The hearing was before Employment Judge Aspinall at Liverpool on 17, 18 and 20 April 2023.
The wage claim succeeded only to the extent that it was admitted that £107.20 was owed for unauthorised deduction from wages. The holiday pay complaint also succeeded only to the extent agreed between the parties, namely three days' holiday pay at three times the daily rate for 2021, including any retrospective increment, assessed at £402.06.
By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the agreed sums of £107.20 and £402.06, making a total of £509.26. The accompanying interest notice stated that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award remained unpaid 14 days after the relevant decision day, with the stipulated rate shown as 8% per annum, but the extracted judgment does not record any separate interest calculation or award amount.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the complaint succeeded only insofar as it was admitted that £107.20 was owed. | Upheld | — | £107 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the complaint succeeded only insofar as it was agreed that three days' holiday pay, including any retrospective increment, totalled £402.06. | Upheld | — | £402 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £509
- 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.