Case 3312948/2023 · Employment Tribunal
M JARVIS v Lenton Joinery Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312948/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M JARVIS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment of the Employment Tribunal in the claim of M Jarvis against Lenton Joinery Ltd. Employment Judge Postle determined the claims on the papers without the need for a hearing on the merits.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,164.26. The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £3,000.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £4,500. No working time or holiday pay determination is recorded in the text of the judgment provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,164.26 for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,164 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £3,000 awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,000 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,500. | Upheld | — | £4,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,664
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.