Case 2601979/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Mulligan v La Steeplejacks — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601979/2019
- Decision date
- 18 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Mulligan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Britton on 18 October 2019. The tribunal found that LA Steeplejacks Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr B Mulligan's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,830.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,500. The judgment does not break the award down further beyond these two sums.
The claims of unfair dismissal and for a redundancy payment were dismissed because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service. No further reasoning is set out in the extracted text for those dismissals.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,830. | Upheld | — | £2,830 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,500. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,330
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- two years qualifying service
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.