Case 2501438/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Emery v Mr Michael J Livermore t/a Alnwick Barbering Company — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501438/2020
- Decision date
- 30 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Emery
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal corrected the respondent’s name to Michael John Livermore trading as Alnwick Barbering Company. It also refused the respondent’s application to amend its response to add a counter-claim because the application was out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the counter-claim to have been submitted in time. The claimant and respondent were both in person.
On the merits, the tribunal found the claimant’s holiday pay claim well founded and recorded that the parties agreed a gross payment of £340. It also found the claimant’s notice pay claim well founded and ordered a further gross payment of £340. The tribunal held that the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and ordered £272 gross.
The total award was £952. The tribunal also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim well founded and the parties agreed that the respondent would pay £340 gross. | Upheld | — | £340 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the notice pay claim well founded and ordered payment of £340 gross. | Upheld | — | £340 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unauthorised deduction of wages under s.13 ERA 1996 was well founded and £272 gross was ordered. | Upheld | — | £272 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £952
- 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.