Case 2501895/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Peter Seaton v Willow View Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501895/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Peter Seaton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 4 December 2023, before Employment Judge M. Salter, Mr Peter Seaton appeared in person and the respondent was represented by an HR representative and a director. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment to present such a claim.
The judgment also recorded that the breach of contract claim for notice pay was dismissed upon withdrawal because the notice pay had been paid. No separate award was made under those claims in the reasons given.
By consent, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £177.44, and recorded that the sum had been paid by the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the tribunal noted the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment to present the claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal because the notice pay had been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the sum had been paid by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £177 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £177
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 ERA 1996
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.