Case 3202640/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Lewis v Harbrine Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202640/2020
- Decision date
- 26 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a remote hearing on 24, 25 and 26 February 2021, Employment Judge G Tobin found that Mr Richard Lewis had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages in breach of s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 from 23 June 2020 until his employment ended. The amount was agreed between the parties, and the tribunal ordered Harbrine Limited to pay £8,993.85 gross.
The tribunal also found that Mr Lewis had been unfairly dismissed in breach of s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. It said it would ordinarily have awarded the maximum uplift on any compensatory award under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because of non-compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, but it found that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal by culpable and blameworthy conduct. On that basis it deducted 100% of any basic award and compensatory award under s.122(2), s.123(1) and s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996, so no compensation or damages were payable under the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal further held that, because the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, he was not owed a redundancy payment, and it dismissed the breach of contract claim. The judgment therefore left only the agreed unlawful deduction award payable.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of wages from 23 June 2020 until termination. The quantification was agreed between the parties and the respondent was ordered to pay £8,993.85 gross. The extracted text states the employment was terminated on 30 August 2021, which appears inconsistent with the February 2021 decision date. | Upheld | — | £8,994 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found unfair dismissal but reduced any basic award and compensatory award by 100% because the claimant had contributed to his dismissal by culpable and blameworthy conduct. It said it would ordinarily have awarded the maximum uplift on any compensatory award for non-compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice, but no compensation or damages were payable under this head. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that, because the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, he was not owed a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed in breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,994
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.122(2), s.123(1) and s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.