Case 2500805/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Simon Bailes Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500805/2023
- Decision date
- 17 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Middlesbrough on 17 November 2023, Employment Judge Aspden upheld Mr A Seaton's claim for an unlawful deduction from wages of £966.64 and his claim for unpaid mileage expenses of £421.50 due under his contract of employment. The tribunal ordered Simon Bailes Limited, trading as Simon Bailes Peugeot, to pay both sums to Mr Seaton.
The tribunal dismissed Mr Seaton's further complaint that the respondent had made another unlawful deduction from wages and/or breached contract by not paying a £1,000 bonus. It also dismissed the respondent's breach of contract claim against Mr Seaton.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Outstanding wages of £966.64 were found to have been unlawfully deducted and ordered to be paid. | Upheld | — | £967 |
| Breach of contract | Mileage expenses totalling £421.50 were found due under the contract of employment and ordered to be paid. | Upheld | — | £422 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Further complaint about a £1,000 bonus, pleaded as an unlawful deduction from wages and/or breach of contract, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's breach of contract claim against the claimant was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,388
- 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.