Case 3202427/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Barlett v Laker BMS Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202427/2019
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Barlett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Lewis dealt with the claim on the papers. The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because he did not have the 2 years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £2408.80 net, made up of salary earned from 1 to 16 August 2019 of £1374.88 less tax and NI of £150.56, £790.00 said to have been unlawfully deducted, and £394.48 for out-of-pocket expenses and mileage.
In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of one week's notice and awarded damages of £701.25. The total sum payable by the respondent was recorded as £3110.05 forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the 2 years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £2408.80, calculated from salary earned for 1-16 August 2019, less tax and NI, plus £790.00 unlawfully deducted and £394.48 for out-of-pocket expenses and mileage. | Upheld | — | £2,409 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant succeeded on the notice pay element, with damages awarded for one week's notice. | Upheld | — | £701 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,110
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21
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.