Case 2601162/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ward v Broughton Astley MOT Centre Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601162/2023
- Decision date
- 16 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 23 May 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21. On that basis, the judgment records findings without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £415.61 gross. That sum was made up of £290.27 described as week in hand, £14.19 described as an SSP shortfall, and £111.15 described as the difference between what was paid into the claimant’s account and what should have been paid.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £174.16 gross, described as a shortfall of 3 days' notice pay. Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £464.44 gross. The total gross award was £1,054.21.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award was made up of £290.27 week in hand, £14.19 SSP shortfall, and £111.15 as the difference between what was paid into the claimant's account and what should have been paid. | Upheld | — | £416 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records a dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages for a 3-day notice pay shortfall. | Upheld | — | £174 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £464.44 gross. | Upheld | — | £464 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,054
- 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.