Case 2601807/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Jessop v Lincs Recycling — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601807/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Lincoln Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Jessop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hutchinson, sitting alone at Lincoln Heard, gave an oral judgment in a case brought by Mr Daniel Jessop against Lincs Recycling (2024) Ltd. The written record states that the tribunal found the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction of wages and ordered payment of £3,294.72 gross.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. For that claim, the tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £366.08 compensation.
In addition, the tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £366.08. The total amount payable by the Respondent was £4,026.88. The written record notes that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of £3,294.72 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,295 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £366.08 compensation. | Upheld | — | £366 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant his holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £366.08. | Upheld | — | £366 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,027
- 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.