Case 2500627/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Murray v John Gibson Hire & Sales Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500627/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr I Murray against John Gibson Hire and Sales Ltd. It found that the claimant’s complaint that the respondent made a deduction from wages in contravention of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded, and ordered the respondent to pay arrears of pay of £2,906.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had breached the claimant’s contract of employment by terminating it without notice. In that respect, the judgment did not quantify damages; it stated that the amount of any damages for breach of contract would be determined under Rule 21 on receipt of further information from the claimant or at a public hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well founded and ordered arrears of pay of £2,906. | Upheld | — | £2,906 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint well founded because the respondent terminated the contract without notice. The amount of damages was left to be determined under Rule 21 on receipt of further information from the claimant or at a public hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,906
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.