Case 2502261/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Buckton v Restoration Force Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502261/2020
- Decision date
- 17 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Buckton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Buckton brought a claim against Restoration Force for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing was conducted remotely by CVP on 17 March 2021 before Employment Judge Arullendran. The respondent was represented by Mrs L Edwards, HR manager at Disaster Care Ltd, and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal's decision was that the claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded, and the written record does not record any separate findings on quantum because the claim failed in full.
The decision note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record therefore records only the dismissal outcome and does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the section 13 ERA 1996 basis for the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.