Case 2411679/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hopwood v Hilclare Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411679/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hopwood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined this claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge KM Ross found that the respondent, Hilclare Limited (in creditors' voluntary liquidation), had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages equivalent to 9 days' pay, and ordered payment of £910.89 gross.
The Tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £4,554.63 gross, representing 9 weeks of outstanding notice pay at the claimant's gross average weekly wage of £506.07. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 15 days on termination, and ordered payment of £1,518.15 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay the total gross sum of £6,983.67. The claimant was made responsible for any tax liabilities arising from the gross award where tax is not deducted at source.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction in respect of 9 days' wages (£101.21 per day x 9). | Upheld | — | £911 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; 9 weeks' outstanding notice pay at £506.07 per week. | Upheld | — | £4,555 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 15 days on termination (£101.21 per day x 15). | Upheld | — | £1,518 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,984
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.