Case 3302349/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rothwell v Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302349/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rothwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 1 December 2022 to 30 April 2023 and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £7,916.65. The complaints of breach of contract in relation to notice pay (£384.62) and pension contributions (£237.50) also succeeded.
The holiday pay complaint succeeded on the basis that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended, with a gross award of £146.16.
The respondent's own contract claim failed and was dismissed. The claimant agreed to return the property in question and the parties were to make arrangements for that return.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 1 December 2022 to 30 April 2023; gross sum of £7,916.65. | Upheld | — | £7,917 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract upheld in relation to notice (£384.62) and pension contributions (£237.50). | Upheld | — | £622 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended; gross sum of £146.16. | Upheld | — | £146 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's employer's contract claim failed and was dismissed; claimant agreed to return the property. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,685
- 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.