Case 2504258/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Goldsmith v Mr J Singh and Mrs Kaur t/a JH Store — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504258/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Goldsmith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at North Shields on 13 February 2020 before Employment Judge Sweeney, the tribunal considered Mr J Goldsmith's claims against Mr J Singh and Mrs Kaur t/a JH Store. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent appeared in person. The judgment records that the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages in the sum of £79.88 was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the complaint under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, relating to unpaid accrued holiday in the sum of £329.03, was well founded and succeeded. The breach of contract complaint, which was in respect of notice pay, was not well founded and was dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the total sum of £408.91 gross, subject to any appropriate tax and national insurance deductions. No separate breakdown of other remedy heads is given in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages in the sum of £79.88 well founded. | Upheld | — | £80 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the complaint under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of unpaid accrued holiday in the sum of £329.03 well founded. | Upheld | — | £329 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint, said to concern notice pay, was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £409
- 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.