Case 2603569/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Fordham v Burton Same Day Couriers Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603569/2019
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Fordham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Victoria Butler, sitting alone at Nottingham by CVP on 29 April 2021, found that the respondent Burton Same Day Couriers had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr M Fordham's wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay him the gross sum of £672 for that claim.
The tribunal also found that Mr Fordham had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of two weeks' notice. Damages were assessed by reference to two weeks' net pay of £575.24, less sums the tribunal held the respondent was entitled to deduct from the final wages, namely £130 for a penalty charge notice and £345 for overpayment of six days' holiday pay.
After those deductions, the tribunal awarded £100.24 for breach of contract. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £672. | Upheld | — | £672 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of two weeks' notice. Damages were calculated as £575.24 net pay less £130 for a penalty charge notice and £345 for overpaid holiday pay, leaving £100.24. | Upheld | — | £100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £772
- 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.