Case 3200826/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Adam v Adless Transport Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200826/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Adam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr I Adam's claims of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract were well founded and succeeded. It ordered Adless Transport Limited to pay the agreed sum of £2,720. The tribunal also noted that there was no right to moral damages as claimed by the claimant.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The respondent's application for costs was refused.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of the agreed sum of £2,720, but did not apportion that sum between this claim and the breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of the agreed sum of £2,720 and recorded that there was no right to moral damages as claimed by the claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,720
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.