Case 2600704/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Thornton v Dako Construction Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600704/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Thornton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 2 April 2023. The first respondent was in administration and failed to present a valid response on time; the administrators consented to the claim proceeding on 31 July 2023. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade filed a response on 30 August 2023. The claimant’s effective date of termination was found to be 24 January 2023.
The tribunal upheld claims for unauthorised deductions from wages for 16-24 January 2023, breach of contract in respect of notice, unauthorised deduction from wages for a bonus payment, and unpaid holiday pay. For the wages claim, the judgment states that the gross amount was £2,476.95, with credit for a £779.17 payment by the Secretary of State, so £1,697.78 was payable. For notice pay, the total net amount was £5,112.17, with credit for a £417.32 payment by the Secretary of State, so £4,694.85 was payable. The bonus claim was awarded at £15,000 and the holiday pay claim at £5,838.52.
The tribunal also made a protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that the first respondent operated at a single establishment with no recognised trade union, that more than 20 employees were made redundant, and that the respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and consult with them. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 24 January 2023 and recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied to that award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages for 16-24 January 2023. The judgment records a gross amount of £2,476.95, with credit for a £779.17 payment by the Secretary of State, leaving £1,697.78 payable. The judgment also notes there was no double recovery because the holiday pay award covered 1-13 January 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,698 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. The judgment records a total net amount of £5,112.17, with credit for a £417.32 payment by the Secretary of State, leaving £4,694.85 payable. | Upheld | — | £4,695 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of a bonus payment for the successful completion of a property at Triumph Road. | Upheld | — | £15,000 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement of 16.5 days. | Upheld | — | £5,839 |
| Trade union | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A TULRCA 1992. The tribunal found there was a single establishment, no recognised trade union, more than 20 employees were made redundant, and the respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and consult with them. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 24 January 2023, but the monetary amount is not stated in the written judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 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.