Case 2603060/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stuart Ross v Melt Homes Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603060/2021
- Decision date
- 1 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phillips
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stuart Ross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Nottingham on 1 April 2022, before Employment Judge Phillips sitting alone, the Claimant was represented by himself and the Respondent was represented by its CEO. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.
The tribunal also rejected the breach of contract claim, holding that the Claimant, being a worker, was not entitled to succeed on that claim and that it was not well founded. No separate remedy was recorded for that claim.
The only claim to succeed was the unlawful deduction from wages claim. The tribunal found that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted from the Claimant's wages and ordered the Respondent to pay the gross sum of £6,785.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that, as a worker, the breach of contract claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £6,785 gross. | Upheld | — | £6,785 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,785
- 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.