Case 3302672/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Cathcart v Esco Builders Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302672/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Cathcart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge Laidler found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3048.32 gross.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £1524.16. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £381.04.
The judgment, dated 14 February 2024, was sent to the parties on 06 March 2024 and entered in the register. The judgment does not set out detailed reasoning or legal tests beyond the Rule 21 disposal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered payment of £3048.32 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages. Rounded to nearest GBP integer. | Upheld | — | £3,048 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £1524.16 awarded. Rounded to nearest GBP integer. | Upheld | — | £1,524 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; £381.04 awarded. Rounded to nearest GBP integer. | Upheld | — | £381 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,953
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.