Case 2500826/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Cooke v Interlink Scaffolding Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500826/2021
- Decision date
- 6 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Cooke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on written representations only, with no response from the respondent, Interlink Scaffolding Limited. Employment Judge Arullendran recorded that the hearing listed for 24 September 2021 was cancelled.
The tribunal held that Mr Anthony Cooke’s claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deduction of wages was well-founded and awarded him £810.00 gross. It also held that his wrongful dismissal claim was well-founded and awarded £621.26 in respect of notice pay, described in the judgment as a net award.
A further claim for breach of contract or severance pay was also found well-founded, with an award of £909.00. The tribunal then increased the above awards by 25% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, recording a total uplift of £582.82 and a total award of £2,914.08.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal awarded £810.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £810 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded as notice pay; the judgment states this was a net award of £621.26. | Upheld | — | £621 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this as a claim for breach of contract or severance pay and awarded £909.00. | Upheld | — | £909 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,914
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.