Case 2416690/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Morton v Peaky Blinders Manchester Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416690/2019
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Morton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 24 February 2020 before Employment Judge Benson, with the claimant appearing in person and no attendance for the respondent, the tribunal found that Peaky Blinders Manchester Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr C Morton £844.71 gross in respect of financial losses incurred.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract and ordered payment of £251.00 net as damages. No separate findings on discrimination, dismissal, or other claims appear in the judgment text provided.
The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. A separate interest notice recorded that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if unpaid after 14 days from 27 February 2020, with the stipulated rate stated as 8%, but no separate interest amount was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal held the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £844.71 gross in respect of financial losses incurred. | Upheld | — | £845 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the respondent had breached the claimant's contract and ordered payment of £251.00 net as damages. | Upheld | — | £251 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,096
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.