Case 2601108/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Barden v British Midland Regional Limited (in Administration) trading as BMI Regional — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601108/2019
- Decision date
- 14 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Barden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Britton recorded that British Midland Regional Limited (in Administration) trading as BMI Regional had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,506.65. The judgment also states that section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1966 applies to the award subject to the statutory cap.
The breach of contract claim was not finally determined. It was stayed for six months for the time being, and the claimant was to notify the tribunal of the outcome of the tandem claim brought by the recognised trade union.
The claim for failure to pay holiday entitlement was dismissed upon withdrawal. No separate remedy was recorded for that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1506.65; the judgment states that section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1966 applies to the award subject to the statutory cap. | Upheld | — | £1,507 |
| Breach of contract | Stayed for 6 months for the time being, pending the outcome of the tandem claim brought by the recognised trade union. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,507
- 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.