Case 3311196/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McKenzie v Blueprint Capital Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311196/2023
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McKenzie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Quill entered judgment for the claimant, Mr A McKenzie, against Blueprint Capital Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £8,048, described in the judgment as two months' pay.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,197.42. The judgment states that this figure was calculated by reference to 23 days at £95.54 net per day.
Separately, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,929. The judgment notes that this was calculated using a multiplier of 3 and the statutory cap. The combined total of the monetary awards is £12,174.42.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £8,048, described as two months' pay. | Upheld | — | £8,048 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract as to notice and awarded £2,197.42, calculated as 23 days at £95.54 net per day. | Upheld | — | £2,197 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,929, using a multiplier of 3 and the statutory cap. | Upheld | — | £1,929 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,174
- 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.