Case 2500795/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Cockerill v Tad Web Solutions Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500795/2023
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Cockerill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle by CVP on 7 July 2023 before Employment Judge Loy. Mr T Cockerill appeared in person, and the respondent was represented by Mr I Elcoate, its Managing Director.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim for unpaid wages was well-founded and succeeded. It also found that the claimant's claim for unpaid payment in lieu of notice was well-founded and succeeded. The written record does not set out any further substantive reasoning beyond those findings.
The remedy section records a total payable sum of £3,465.21. That total is made up of a gross award of £2,083.33 for unpaid wages and a net award of £1,381.88 for unpaid payment in lieu of notice. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid wages and awards a gross sum of £2,083.33. | Upheld | — | £2,083 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid payment in lieu of notice and awards a net sum of £1,381.88. | Upheld | — | £1,382 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,465
- 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.