Case 2417324/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bryce, Solicitor v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2417324/2018
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Signed
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Bryce, Solicitor
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Carlisle, heard by Employment Judge Warren on 17, 18 and 19 February 2020, held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it. No discrimination or whistleblowing issues are identified in the judgment extract, and the decision was given with oral reasons at the hearing.
The claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully deducted the claimant's wages between 9 December 2017 and 23 August 2018 and ordered payment of net wages totalling £11,026.17.
A further claim for compensation for untaken accrued annual leave also succeeded. The tribunal awarded £931.02 net for the period 1 February 2018 to 23 August 2018. The judgment records a total award of £11,957.19, and the attached interest notice states that interest may apply if the sums are not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully deducted the claimant's wages between 9 December 2017 and 23 August 2018. | Upheld | — | £11,026 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states this as compensation for untaken accrued annual leave from 1 February 2018 to 23 August 2018. | Upheld | — | £931 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,957
- 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.