Case 2417914/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Barmby v SSO Logistics Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417914/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Liverpool via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Barmby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sharkett, sitting alone at Liverpool via CVP on 13 April 2021, found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages in the sum of £104. The judgment ordered the respondent to pay that amount to the claimant, with the respondent to account for any tax or National Insurance contributions that may be payable on it.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £95.62 in lieu of holiday accrued but not taken at the date of termination of the claimant’s employment. No separate reasons are given in the extracted judgment beyond the orders themselves, and no other claims or findings are set out in the judgment text.
The judgment does not record any dismissal of claims, any disputed liability analysis, or any separate award for interest. The monetary sums ordered in the judgment total £199.62.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £104 and ordered that amount to be paid, with the respondent to account for any tax or NI contributions payable on it. | Upheld | — | £104 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered payment of £95.62 in lieu of holiday accrued but not taken at the date of termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £96 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £200
- 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.