Case 3303154/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Godwin v Mara Phones Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303154/2021
- Decision date
- 16 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Godwin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hawksworth issued a Rule 21 judgment for Mr A Godwin against Mara Phones Limited. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of arrears of pay for December 2020 and January 2021 and ordered the respondent to pay £8,334. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of his entitlement to one week’s notice and awarded damages of £1,041.75.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s expenses of £179.26 and laptop and mobile costs for December 2020 and January 2021, and ordered damages of £262.26. The judgment states that the sums at paragraphs 1 and 2 were gross figures, with tax and national insurance to be dealt with if paid through payroll, and that the paragraph 3 figure was a net amount payable in full.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,334 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,042 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records unpaid expenses of £179.26 and laptop/mobile costs of £90.00, but the damages awarded are £262.26; the figures in the text do not arithmetically match that award. | Upheld | — | £262 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,638
- 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.