Case 2500575/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Tomlinson v Andrew Craig Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500575/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Tomlinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. The written judgment records that the claim was advanced on the basis that the claimant had terminated the employment contract in circumstances said to fall within section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded. It recorded that the deduction related to sums connected with damage to a van and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £691.50.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a complaint that the claimant terminated the contract in circumstances said to fall within section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and alleged unfair dismissal; it was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The upheld complaint concerned sums deducted from wages relating to damage to a van. | Upheld | — | £692 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £692
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.