Case 2500215/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal upholds 2 claims against John Gibson Hire & Sales Ltd
The tribunal recorded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the nett sum of £2,024.19. The judgment also recorded that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract.
- Case reference
- 2500215/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the nett sum of £2,024.19. The judgment also recorded that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract.
In respect of the breach of contract finding, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £318.54 for notice pay. No further reasoning, factual background, or legal tests were set out in the extracted text. The judgment is therefore limited to the two monetary orders and the findings that supported them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment ordered payment of the nett sum of £2,024.19 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,024 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment found dismissal in breach of contract and ordered £318.54 in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £319 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,343
- 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.