Case 3303549/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Ruby v Doormatic Garage Doors Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303549/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Ruby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading on 4 December 2019 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto. The claimant, Mr K Ruby, appeared in person and the respondent, Doormatic Garage Doors Limited, was represented by Mr Edward Wallace.
The judgment records a single outcome: the claimant’s complaint of breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record does not set out separate findings on each head of claim and does not record any monetary award.
The judgment notes that reasons for the decision had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No further reasoning appears in the written record provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed; no separate finding is given for this head alone. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed; no separate finding is given for this head alone. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.