Case 3200015/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Murray v CPS Architecture + Design Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200015/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Russell dated 13 May 2020. The tribunal found that CPS Architecture + Design Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr C Murray’s wages and ordered payment of £3,143.77.
The tribunal also found that Mr Murray was dismissed without payment of notice. It recorded that his statutory entitlement was two weeks and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £708.28. In addition, it found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £903.85.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It found that Mr Murray would have been dismissed fairly in any event after two weeks, and accordingly awarded compensation of £708.28.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,144 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £708 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £904 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but said the claimant would have been dismissed fairly in any event after two weeks, so compensation was limited to £708.28. | Upheld | — | £708 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,464
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £708
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.