Case 2603217/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Heath v CME Contracts Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2603217/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Heath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaints relating to holiday pay, sick pay, unpaid pension contributions, and breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages in respect of travel expenses.
The complaint of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of overtime payments was well founded and succeeded. The claimant was awarded GBP 340.40. Written reasons were not included in the written judgment because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Sick pay complaint dismissed; no more specific locked taxonomy enum applies. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Unpaid pension contributions complaint dismissed; no more specific locked taxonomy enum applies. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Travel expenses complaint was described as breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Travel expenses complaint was described as breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Overtime payments complaint succeeded. | Upheld | — | £340 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £340
- 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.