Case 3309426/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Williams v Elite Contracting Limited (In creditors voluntary liquidation) and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309426/2023
- Decision date
- 12 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr I Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the form of unpaid pension contributions, and ordered payment of £3,052 net to the claimant.
In relation to redundancy, the tribunal found that the claimant had been fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and had already received a redundancy payment. The claim for a redundancy payment was accordingly dismissed.
The judgment, issued by Employment Judge Hutchings on 12 August 2024, does not address the breach of contract or working time elements listed on the gov.uk listing, and the available PDF text is brief and does not include reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in the form of unpaid pension contributions; respondent ordered to pay £3,052 net. | Upheld | — | £3,052 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and had already received a redundancy payment; the claim for a redundancy payment was therefore dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,052
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.