Case 3200116/2023 · Employment Tribunal
1. Matthew Lucas 2. Allan Towner 3. Lee Williams v London Borough of Redbridge — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200116/2023
- Decision date
- 27 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sugarman Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Matthew Lucas 2. Allan Towner 3. Lee Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimants' claims for unlawful deductions from wages succeeded. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the back pay promised in Mr Dodds' grievance outcome letter dated 25 October 2022.
The respondent was ordered to pay gross sums of £5,385.05 to Matthew Lucas, £4,680.60 to Allan Towner, and £4,801.25 to Lee Williams. The race discrimination claims were not upheld because the judgment records that those claims had already been withdrawn and were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the unlawful deductions from wages claims and ordered gross payments of £5,385.05 to Matthew Lucas, £4,680.60 to Allan Towner, and £4,801.25 to Lee Williams. | Upheld | — | £14,867 |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination claims were dismissed because the claimants had already withdrawn all such claims. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,867
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.