Case 3312920/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MR BARRY MCKILLION v Gtek Foods Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312920/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR BARRY MCKILLION
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Heather heard the case remotely at Watford on 9 June 2023. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for wrongful dismissal, notice pay, and unlawful deductions from wages as not well founded.
The tribunal found the claimant's holiday pay claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £63.46 gross. It also allowed the respondent's contract claim against the claimant and ordered the claimant to pay £355.16.
Taking the two monetary findings together, the tribunal recorded that the net amount due from the claimant to the respondent was £291.70. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as a notice pay claim and dismisses it together with the wrongful dismissal and unlawful deductions claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unlawful deductions from wages claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £63.46 gross. | Upheld | — | £63 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contract counterclaim was allowed and the claimant was ordered to pay £355.16. | Upheld | — | £355 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £292
- 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.