Case 2501394/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Vickers v Parkwood JF Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501394/2023
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Vickers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Smith found the Claimant's complaint of breach of contract, said to be non-payment of notice pay, to be well founded. The Respondent, Parkwood JF Ltd, was ordered to pay £2,307.72, described in the judgment as four weeks at £576.93.
The tribunal also found the Claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages, said to be non-payment of holiday pay, to be well founded. The tribunal declared accordingly and ordered the Respondent to pay £908.60, described as 10 days pay. The hearing listed for 6 September 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint concerned non-payment of notice pay. The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered payment of £2,307.72, described as 4 weeks at £576.93. | Upheld | — | £2,308 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint concerned non-payment of holiday pay. The tribunal found the claim well founded, declared accordingly, and ordered payment of £908.60, described as 10 days pay. | Upheld | — | £909 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,216
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.