Case 2604353/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D Reddington (1) Mr. S Reddington (2) v Merriott Chard Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2604353/2020
- Decision date
- 27 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D Reddington (1) Mr. S Reddington (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorized deductions from the wages of both claimants and ordered payment of gross sums to each claimant.
The tribunal also found that each claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages for notice pay. It further found that the respondent failed to pay each claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the specified holiday sums.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment awarded gross sums of £484.96 to Mr D Reddington and £1,072.80 to Mr S Reddington for unauthorized deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,558 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £512.00 to Mr D Reddington and £373.00 to Mr S Reddington. | Upheld | — | £885 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment found failure to pay holiday entitlement, awarding £942.20 to Mr D Reddington and £462.00 to Mr S Reddington. | Upheld | — | £1,404 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,847
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.