Case 2501795/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hurst v White Knight Maintenance Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501795/2020
- Decision date
- 22 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Hurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 22 March 2021 at Newcastle CFCTC by CVP before Employment Judge Newburn. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr G Hurst, appeared in person and the respondent, White Knight Maintenance Ltd, was represented by Mr L Bishop, Managing Director. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and issued a written record of the decision, with no separate written reasons unless requested within 14 days.
The claimant succeeded on his breach of contract claim brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay net notice pay of £286.16. The claimant also succeeded on his claim that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages, in respect of unpaid wages, and the tribunal ordered payment of £1,085.85 gross.
The judgment records a total award of £1,372.01. It also states that the £1,085.85 wages award was a gross award and that the claimant would be liable to the Inland Revenue for any tax and national insurance due on it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Succeeded in respect of notice pay under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; net sum ordered. | Upheld | — | £286 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages claim succeeded in respect of unpaid wages; gross award ordered, with tax and national insurance liability left to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,086 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,372
- 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.