Case 3307931/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Johnson-Dutfield v H2ope Engineering Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307931/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Johnson-Dutfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Johnson-Dutfield’s case was heard at Reading on 24 July 2024 before Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to expenses was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £597.45.
The tribunal also found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages in the payment months of May and June 2023. It ordered payment of £5,987.50, described as the gross sum deducted, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance. The tribunal further found that the holiday pay complaint was well-founded because the respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and ordered payment of £979.33, again with tax or National Insurance payable by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract was in relation to expenses. | Upheld | — | £597 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in the payment months of May and June 2023. | Upheld | — | £5,988 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £979 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,564
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.