Case 3305864/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Burton v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305864/2023
- Decision date
- 14 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr F Burton
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a default judgment determined on the papers by Employment Judge M Warren after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. The tribunal decided the case on the basis of the information before the Employment Judge.
The tribunal found that the respondent, Coastal Recycling Limited, had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,035. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to reimburse the claimant's fuel expenses in breach of contract and ordered damages of £479.
For the avoidance of doubt, the judgment recorded that the total payable by the respondent to the claimant under the terms of the judgment, without deduction and taxable in the claimant's hands, was £1,514.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment issued after no valid response was presented in time. Tribunal ordered payment of £1,035 for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,035 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the respondent failed to reimburse the claimant's fuel expenses in breach of contract; damages of £479 ordered. | Upheld | — | £479 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,514
- 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.