Case 2600067/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Shirley v Merriott Chard Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600067/2021
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Shirley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was given under Rule 21 by Employment Judge Victoria Butler after a CVP hearing at Nottingham. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in November 2020. It assessed the deduction at £3,541.66 gross, gave credit for £1,844.57 received from the Insolvency Service, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,697.09 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement. It ordered damages for notice in the stated sum of £1,210.12 and holiday pay of £1,239.49 gross. The notice-pay figures in the extracted text are internally unclear, so the remedy entry follows the sum expressly ordered by the tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages of £3,541.66 gross, with credit for £1,844.57 received from the Insolvency Service, leaving £1,697.09 ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,697 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and orders damages of £1,210.12, but the extracted text also states entitlement to a net payment of £597.92 and credit for £387.80, which is arithmetically unclear. | Upheld | — | £1,210 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £1,239.49 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,239 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,147
- 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.