Case 3200266/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B McCarthy v Install Base Limited (in administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200266/2019
- Decision date
- 9 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B McCarthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 28 June 2019 before Employment Judge Moor, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not appearing, the tribunal found that the complaints of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and wrongful dismissal were all well-founded.
The judgment records awards of £5,130.32 for wages unlawfully deducted and £2,274.00 for wrongful dismissal by way of notice pay. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £8,926.20 and a compensatory award of £13,007.
The total monetary award was £29,337.52. The judgment also states that recoupment applied, with a prescribed element of £6,254.77 relating to the period 18 January 2019 to 28 June 2019, and an amount of £23,082.75 payable immediately as the balance over the prescribed element.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £8,926.20 and compensatory award of £13,007 were awarded on the unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £21,933 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for wages unlawfully deducted. | Upheld | — | £5,130 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded as notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,274 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,338
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,926
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,007
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.