Case 2500427/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hollingworth v County Durham Security Ltd Heard: Remotely (by video) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500427/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hollingworth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr C Hollingworth was an employee of County Durham Security Ltd. The respondent did not appear at the final hearing, which was held remotely by video on 20 September 2021. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was remote because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
All three claims succeeded. The tribunal held that the claimant's claim of unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded and ordered payment of £2,250.00. It also found that the claim for failure to pay holiday pay for the period 25 June 2020 to 25 December 2020 was well-founded and ordered £1,459.04.
The tribunal further found that the breach of contract claim, based on failure to reimburse expenses, was well-founded and ordered £366.01. The total payable by the respondent to the claimant was £4,074.05. The written record states that reasons had been given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's claim of unauthorised deduction of wages well-founded and awarded £2,250.00. | Upheld | — | £2,250 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for failure to pay holiday pay for 25 June 2020 to 25 December 2020 well-founded and awarded £1,459.04. | Upheld | — | £1,459 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim, relating to failure to reimburse expenses, well-founded and awarded £366.01. | Upheld | — | £366 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,074
- 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.