Case 2601708/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alex Haws v JE Engineering Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601708/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alex Haws
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by JE Engineering Ltd as a Lead Powertrain Test and Calibration Engineer and claimed for 135 hours of overtime. The tribunal recorded that there was no dispute about the hours worked or their monetary value, and that the issue was liability rather than quantum.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that there was an oral agreement for the overtime to be paid, and did not find Mr Wilson's evidence reliable. It also relied on an email from Mr Douglas authorising payment of the 135 hours and rejected the respondent's argument that there was no authority to agree or authorise the payment.
The tribunal found the unlawful deduction from wages claim well-founded and held that £2,596.05 was properly payable. It ordered that the sum be made gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax and national insurance liability, and recorded that a claim for unpaid expenses had been withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid overtime was well-founded and that £2,596.05 was properly payable within section 13(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,596 |
| Other | The judgment states that a claim for unpaid expenses was withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,596
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- indoor management rule
- Rule in Turquand's Case
- British Bank v Turquand [1856] 6 E&B 327
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.