Case 3313708/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Nichols v Delta Mobrey Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313708/2022
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Nichols
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Reading on 4 and 5 September 2023, Employment Judge Hawksworth found that Delta Mobrey Limited had breached Mr A Nichols's contract of employment in respect of overtime pay. The overtime claim succeeded in part, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,456.13 gross, with payment of the net sum permitted if the correct tax and national insurance due were paid to HMRC.
The tribunal also found that Mr Nichols was not constructively dismissed by the respondent. On that basis, his complaint of automatic unfair dismissal failed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent breached the contract of employment in respect of overtime pay and that the overtime claim succeeded in part. It ordered payment of £1,456.13 gross, with the net sum payable if the correct tax and national insurance were paid to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £1,456 |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that Mr Nichols was not constructively dismissed by Delta Mobrey Limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal failed because the tribunal found that Mr Nichols had not been constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,456
- 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.