Case 2601876/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Jefferson v J Melton Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601876/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Lincoln Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Jefferson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Lincoln before Employment Judge Hutchinson sitting alone on 15 January 2024, the tribunal gave oral judgment in favour of Mr Paul Jefferson on all three claims recorded in the written judgment. It found that J Melton Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from wages, that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The tribunal ordered payment of £2,978.64 gross for the unlawful deduction from wages claim, £4,537.50 for breach of contract, and £16,170.40 as a redundancy payment. The written record states that the respondent must pay the claimant £23,686.54 in total. Written reasons were not provided because the judgment was given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons is recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered repayment of £2,978.64 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,979 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered payment of £4,537.50. | Upheld | — | £4,538 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £16,170.40. | Upheld | — | £16,170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,687
- 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.