Case 3200600/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Harris v AL Motors Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200600/2021
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the East London Hearing Centre on 4 October 2021, Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson heard the claimant, Mr S Harris, appearing in person by telephone, and the respondent, AL Motors Ltd, represented by Mr Kevin Goodman by telephone. The judgment records that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages was well founded and allowed, and that his claim for breach of contract was also well founded and allowed.
The tribunal awarded a total of £852. The judgment itemises £102 for underpaid wages on 22/10/2020, described as 4 hours at £25.50, £240 for deductions from wages for a cleaning company van, and £510 for underpayment of pay in lieu of notice, described as 20 hours at £25.50. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning or any named legal test beyond those outcomes and figures.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment allowed this claim and listed two components that fit unlawful deductions from wages: £102 for underpaid wages on 22/10/2020 and £240 for deductions from wages for the cleaning company van. | Upheld | — | £342 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment allowed this claim and listed £510 for underpayment of pay in lieu of notice, being 20 hours at £25.50. | Upheld | — | £510 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £852
- 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.