Case 3200953/2020 · Employment Tribunal
George Hollingsworth William Hollingsworth Michael Martin v Russell Taylor Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200953/2020
- Decision date
- 12 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
George Hollingsworth William Hollingsworth Michael Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records case numbers 3200953/2020, 3200954/2020 and 3200955/2020, heard by telephone at East London Hearing Centre on 11 November 2020 before Employment Judge Moor. The claimants were Mr George Hollingsworth, Mr William Hollingsworth and Mr Michael Martin, and the respondent was Russell Taylor Group Limited.
The decision is headed "JUDGMENT BY CONSENT". By consent, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr George Hollingsworth £112.00 gross, Mr William Hollingsworth £160.00 gross, and Mr Michael Martin £160.00 gross. The judgment does not set out any disputed factual findings, legal analysis, or reasons for the agreed sums.
On the face of the judgment, the only recorded outcome is the consent order for payment of those gross amounts, giving a combined total of £432.00 gross. No separate remedy components, interest, or other awards are identified in the text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment by consent; the Tribunal ordered payment of this gross sum and gave no merits findings. | Settled | — | £112 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment by consent; the Tribunal ordered payment of this gross sum and gave no merits findings. | Settled | — | £160 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment by consent; the Tribunal ordered payment of this gross sum and gave no merits findings. | Settled | — | £160 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £432
- 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.