Case 2600623/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Handsley v Rymo Plumbing & Heating and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600623/2020
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Handsley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Clark Date on 7 December 2020. The claimant was Mr J Handsley and the respondents were Rymo Plumbing & Heating and Ryan Johnstone and Molly Smith t/a Rymo Plumbing and Heating.
The tribunal found that the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondents to pay the claimant the net sum of £1,279.44.
The tribunal also found that, at the date the claim was begun, the respondents were in breach of their duty to the claimant under sections 1(1) and 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that it was just and equitable in the circumstances to award the higher amount under section 38(3) and (4) of the Employment Act 2002, namely £1,099.56. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £2,379.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,279.44. | Upheld | — | £1,279 |
| Other | The tribunal found that, at the date the claim was begun, the respondents were in breach of their duty under sections 1(1) and 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £1,099.56 under section 38(3) and (4) of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,379
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21
- sections 1(1) and 4(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38(3) and (4) Employment Act 2002
- just and equitable
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.