Case 2603459/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Whitecross v Meddo Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603459/2019
- Decision date
- 17 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Whitecross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,910.00.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,910.00 in damages. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,150.00.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £205.35.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,910 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,910 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,150 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £205 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,175
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.