Case 3301567/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Coller, Director — 2020
- Case reference
- 3301567/2019
- Decision date
- 14 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Postle heard the case at Norwich on 14 May 2020. The claimant, Mr C Lane, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Coller, Director. The tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing, and the written record sets out only the decision itself.
The tribunal found that the respondents had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages for one day. It ordered payment of the gross sum of £140 on that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages equivalent to one week’s notice in the sum of £700.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondents had failed to pay the claimant’s accrued holiday entitlement, recorded as 9 days outstanding at the termination of his employment. It ordered payment of £1,260 for that entitlement. The total monetary award across the three upheld claims was £2,100.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for one day and ordered payment of the gross sum of £140. | Upheld | — | £140 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £700, described as one week. | Upheld | — | £700 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay accrued holiday entitlement, recorded as 9 days outstanding at termination, and ordered payment of £1,260. | Upheld | — | £1,260 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,100
- 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.