Case 2416719/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Jackson v MacMahon Leggate Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416719/2019
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Franey in Manchester on 24 February 2020, dismissed the respondent's contract claim. The reason given was that the claimant had not brought any complaint of breach of contract, so the respondent did not have the right to bring its own contract claim.
The claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,468.00, made up of £564.90 for work done between 1 and 8 October 2019, £526.50 for 26 hours of overtime, and £376.60 for payment in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave.
The written judgment records the award as a gross sum and does not set out any separate interest figure or other remedy beyond that payment. The notice attached to the judgment explains the tribunal interest regime and the relevant decision day, but no separate interest amount is stated in the operative judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contract claim was dismissed because no complaint of breach of contract had been brought by the claimant, and the respondent did not have the right to bring its own contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay succeeded. The award comprised £564.90 for work done between 1 and 8 October 2019, £526.50 for 26 hours of overtime, and £376.60 for accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £1,468 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,468
- 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.