Case 3307691/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Dickens v Club 99 Men’s Health Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307691/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Margo Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Dickens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cambridge by CVP on 1 February 2024. The claimant, Mr L Dickens, appeared in person. The respondent did not attend. The judgment records that Employment Judge Margo Representation heard the case and later sent reasons on 19 February 2024.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay £1,096.05 net for an unlawful deduction from wages. It also upheld a separate claim for an unlawful deduction relating to accrued but untaken holiday pay at the time of dismissal and ordered £650.95 net.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had breached contract by failing to reimburse the claimant for expenses connected with the purchase of hair colouring products. It ordered payment of £927.39 for the loss incurred as a result of that breach. The total monetary award reflected in the judgment is £2,674.39.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,096.05. | Upheld | — | £1,096 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held there was an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday pay at the time of dismissal and ordered payment of the net sum of £650.95. | Upheld | — | £651 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract in failing to reimburse the claimant for expenses relating to the purchase of hair colouring products and ordered payment of £927.39. | Upheld | — | £927 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,674
- 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.