Case 2600715/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Pyne v Alto Electrical Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600715/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Pyne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 September 2024 at Lincoln Magistrates' Court, Employment Judge S Shore recorded that the correct name of the respondent was Alto Electrical Limited. The respondent did not appear. The tribunal also dismissed claim number 2600734/2024 as a duplicate claim.
The claimant's claim of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of £7,500.00 gross for wages for November and December 2023 and £515.00 gross for pension contributions. The written total at paragraph 5 uses £516.00 for this head, so the decision contains a £1 discrepancy between the detailed award and the overall arithmetic.
The claimant's claim of breach of contract also succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of £589.38 gross for expenses claimed and unpaid, and £807.69 gross for one week's notice. The total payable was recorded as £9,413.07 gross without deduction of income tax and National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim number 2600734/2024 was found to be a duplicate claim and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded £7,500.00 for wages for November and December 2023 and £515.00 for pension contributions. Paragraph 5 of the written judgment totals this head as £8,016.00, so there is a £1 discrepancy in the record. | Upheld | — | £8,015 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded £589.38 for unpaid expenses and £807.69 for one week's notice. | Upheld | — | £1,397 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,413
- 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.