Case 3207434/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alexander Morris v Maldon Brewing Company Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207434/2021
- Decision date
- 13 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flanagan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alexander Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Flanagan, sitting alone, heard the case on 13 July 2022. The tribunal found that Mr Alexander Morris had been dismissed by the respondent by reason of redundancy with effect from 16 November 2021. It ordered payment of the statutory redundancy payment in the sum of £855.36.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant's salary from 1 July 2021 until 16 November 2021, and awarded £2,409.29 for that claim. The claimant's breach of contract claim was found well founded, with the award stated to be £855.36, comprising notice pay.
Finally, the tribunal found that accrued but unpaid holiday pay was due under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £798.34. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any other remedy component beyond the amounts listed above.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 16 November 2021 and ordered the statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £855 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages because the respondent failed to pay salary from 1 July 2021 until 16 November 2021. | Upheld | — | £2,409 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was held well founded and the award comprised notice pay. | Upheld | — | £855 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found accrued but unpaid holiday pay due under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £798 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,918
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.