Case 2413896/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Graham v Heywood Rug Company Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413896/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Graham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file a response within the time limit, so judgment was entered under Rule 21 by Employment Judge Ross at Manchester by CVP on 7 January 2021. The tribunal dealt with the case on the papers and made limited monetary awards rather than determining any disputed liability after a contested hearing.
The claimant's claim for an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of a shortfall in notice pay succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £37.22 within 21 days of the judgment. The claimant's separate claim for a shortfall in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment also succeeded, and the tribunal ordered payment of £58.22 within 21 days.
The claimant also advanced an unlawful deduction from wages claim concerning a payment relating to tax. The tribunal held that this was a matter over which it had no jurisdiction and said it could not deal with it. The total sum payable under the judgment was £95.44.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Shortfall in notice pay; tribunal ordered payment within 21 days. | Upheld | — | £37 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Shortfall in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination; tribunal ordered payment within 21 days. | Upheld | — | £58 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim relating to a payment concerning tax was said to be a matter over which the tribunal had no jurisdiction, so it could not deal with it. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £95
- 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.