Case 3202197/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Thomas Mellor v Coggeshall Investment Limited and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202197/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Thomas Mellor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the First Respondent, Coggeshall Investment Limited, was the Claimant's employer. It upheld the Claimant's claim that the First Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from his final pay and awarded him £845.26 in respect of that deduction.
The tribunal also found that the First Respondent failed to give the Claimant a written statement of employment particulars. For that failure, it awarded four weeks' pay in the sum of £2,100. The claims against the Second Respondent, Dedham Investment Limited, and the Third Respondent, North Essex Wine and Kitchen Limited, were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the First Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's final pay. | Upheld | — | £845 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to give the Claimant a written statement of employment particulars and awarded four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,945
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.