Case 3310899/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Shaw v Aztech Engineering Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3310899/2020
- Decision date
- 7 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing on 7 September 2021 before Employment Judge Heath, the tribunal dealt with Mr K Shaw's claims against Aztech Engineering Ltd. The respondent conceded liability for holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal also found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant and was in breach of contract by dismissing him without notice.
The judgment recorded awards of £885.75 for unauthorised deduction from wages and £207.50 for holiday pay. For unfair dismissal, it recorded a basic award of £6,867.55, loss of rights of £361.45 and a total compensatory award of £2,963.98. The breach of contract award was £3,495.73.
The total award was £14,781.96.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. | Upheld | — | £886 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent conceded that the holiday pay claim was well-founded. | Upheld | — | £208 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. The remedy recorded a basic award of £6,867.55, loss of rights of £361.45 and a total compensatory award of £2,963.98. | Upheld | — | £10,193 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. | Upheld | — | £3,496 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,782
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,868
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,964
- 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.