Case 2602159/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr J Mather, Director. — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602159/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Clark
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Nottingham on 8 October 2019 before Employment Judge R Clark sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr J Mather, Director. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing, so written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days.
The claimant's claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. No further findings were recorded on that issue in the judgment.
The tribunal upheld the claim of unlawful deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £226, described as the amount unlawfully deducted from the claimant's final net wages. The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract claim and ordered payment of the gross sum of £327. The judgment does not separate any broader remedy heads beyond those two awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £226 that had been unlawfully deducted from the claimant's final net wages. | Upheld | — | £226 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £327. | Upheld | — | £327 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £553
- 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.