Case 2414695/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Nester v Heywood Electrical & Sons Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414695/2019
- Decision date
- 19 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Nester
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, holding that Mr J Nester was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of section 104A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not set out any award on that claim.
The tribunal upheld the wages claim in part. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £66.50 without deduction for tax or national insurance.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's contention that other deductions were unlawful. It found that deductions said to relate to non-attendance at college and non-return of company property were authorised. It also refused permission to amend the claim to add further complaints about deductions, and refused an amendment to introduce complaints of discrimination or harassment contrary to the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of section 104A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found one unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £66.50 without deduction for tax or national insurance. It found that other alleged deductions for non-attendance at college and non-return of company property were authorised. | Upheld | — | £67 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £67
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 104A 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.