Case 2602939/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr GJ Edwards v UK Pellet Co Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602939/2018
- Decision date
- 3 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr GJ Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, the tribunal found in favour of Mr GJ Edwards on all matters determined against UK Pellet Co Limited. It held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £2,407.80 net, and it also found that the claimant had not been paid his holiday entitlement, ordering £1,599.00.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,075.00 damages. It also held that he was unfairly dismissed, awarding a basic award of £2,407.80 and a compensatory award of £7,724.70. The judgment records no separate interest award and no discrimination findings.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £2,407.80 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,408 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,075.00 damages. | Upheld | — | £3,075 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £2,407.80 and a compensatory award of £7,724.70. | Upheld | — | £10,133 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,599.00. | Upheld | — | £1,599 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,214
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,408
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,725
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.