Case 2601111/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adam Woolerton v CRK Commercial Insurance Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601111/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adam Woolerton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open final hearing on 12 August 2022, Employment Judge Blackwell sitting alone heard Mr Adam Woolerton's claims against CRK Commercial Insurance Services Ltd. The tribunal dismissed the claim of unlawful deduction in respect of bonus payment and dismissed the claim of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of sick pay.
The claim of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay was upheld by consent, and the respondent was ordered to pay £1,196.20. The claim concerning failure to pay full notice pay succeeded in part, with £1,289.23 awarded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £2,485.43. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing, unless a further request was made within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction in respect of bonus payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of sick pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay was upheld by consent. | Upheld | — | £1,196 |
| Breach of contract | Claim in respect of failure to pay full notice pay succeeded in part in the sum stated. | Upheld | — | £1,289 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,485
- 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.