Case 3312603/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Eaton v CJ Services — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312603/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Eaton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of the claimant, Mr D Eaton, against CJ Services. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £4,917.00, calculated as 11 weeks from the end of furlough to 15 October 2020 at £447 net per week.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,421.00. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,235.00.
The total award was £9,573.00. The judgment does not set out any separate award for interest or any further breakdown beyond the three sums identified in the operative part of the decision.
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 the net sum of £4,917.00, described as 11 weeks from the end of furlough to 15 October 2020 at £447 net per week. | Upheld | — | £4,917 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,421.00. | Upheld | — | £2,421 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,235.00. | Upheld | — | £2,235 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,573
- 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.