Case 3305590/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Burton v Jetview Properties Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3305590/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Burton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge R Lewis decided the case on the papers. The tribunal found that Jetview Properties Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr O Burton's wages and ordered payment of £1,611.44 net.
The tribunal also found that Mr Burton had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages for that claim were assessed at £4,834.32.
In addition, the tribunal found that Mr Burton was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,362.50. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £134.55.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,611.44. | Upheld | — | £1,611 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,834.32. | Upheld | — | £4,834 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,362.50. | Upheld | — | £2,363 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £134.55. | Upheld | — | £135 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,943
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,834
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.